932z 


UC-NRLF 


Di9 


gorfe  Untoertfttp 


OTTENDORFER  MEMORIAL  SERIES  OF 
GERMANIC  MONOGRAPHS 

No.  3 


TIECK'S  ESSAY 


ON  THE 


BOYDELL  SHAKSPERE  GALLERY 


BY 


GEORGE  HENRY  DANTON 


gorfe  iHn 


OTTENDORFER  MEMORIAL  SERIES  OF 
GERMANIC  MONOGRAPHS 

No.  3 


TIECK'S  ESSAY 


ON  THE 


BOYDELL  SHAKSPERE  GALLERY 


BY 


GEORGE  HENRY  DANTON 


INDIANAPOLIS 

EDWARD  J.  HECKER,  PRINTER 

1912 


Paper  3«  Pebtcateb 
tlje  Jl^emorp 
of 
<&ttenborfer 


PREFACE 

'T'HE  material  which  was  originally  pland  for  my  monograf  in 
1  the  Ottendorfer  series  has  since  been  independently  publisht 
by  Steinert  in  his  dissertation  and  book  on  Tieck's  color  sense  and 
by  O.  Fischer  in  an  article,  "Ueber  Verbindung  von  Farbe  und 
Klang"  in  the  Zeitschrift  fuer  jEsthetik.  These  three  works 
renderd  the  publication  of  my  material  superfluous,  made  a 
change  of  plan  necessary  and  the  result  is  that  my  monograf  has 
been  very  much  delayd  in  appearing. 

As  far  as  I  know,  there  is  no  other  study  of  Tieck's  first  criti- 
cal paper.  I  found  it  worth  while  to  do  this  monograf  because 
the  comparison  with  the  original  engraving  brought  out  so  many 
interesting  facts,  threw  light  on  Tieck's  erly  critical  method,  ex- 
plaind  his  taste,  showd  his  use  of  sources  and  above  all,  con- 
tradicted the  positiv  assertion  of  Haym  that  Lessing's  influence 
is  nowhere  discernible.  The  meny  interesting  facts'  about  the 
gallery  itself  that  came  to  light  in  the  course  of  the  paper, 
the  meny  questions  about  it  which  I  was  unable  to  solv,  may 
perhaps  become  the  matter  of  another  article. 

The  "Gallery"  is  for  us  now  a  revenant  of  a  past  and  some- 
what impossible  generation.  A  certain  air  of  English  commer- 
cial roastbeefism  clings  to  it.  It  is  an  England,  the  art  of  which 
knows  nothing  of  Constable  and  still  less  of  Turner,  an  England 
which  loves  Shakspere  without  reading  him — as  Tieck  suspect- 
ed— and  whose  gallofobia  does  not  recognize  the  det  to  France 
and  the  French  elements  in  this  very  series.  As  an  interpretation 
of  Shakspere,  it  is  no  more  than  on  a  plane  with  Colly  Gibber. 
Tieck  saw  this  and  felt  it,  but  could  not  make  clear  to  himself 
what  was  wrong  with  it.  The  plates  belong  in  parlors  of  the 
haircloth  age,  where  indeed,  they  may  still  often  be  found.  It 
is  before  the  day  of  the  painted  snowshovel  and  the  crayon  por- 
trait, but  the  delicacy  of  the  Adams'  decorations  has  gone  out 
and  the  new  strength  of  Romanticism  has  not  come  in.  There 
is  surely  no  tuch  of  the  Elizabethan  or  Jacobean  spirit. 

I  wish  to  take  this  opportunity  to  thank  the  various  members 
of  the  staffs  of  the  Stanford  University  and  the  Columbia  Uni- 
versity Libraries,  of  the  Congressional  and  New  York  Public 


Libraries  for  their  aid ;  especially  to  thank  Mr.  Weitenkampf 
for  his  very  great  help  on  technical  matters.  Mr.  L.  L.  Mackall 
also  furnisht  me  with  very  valuable  information.  The  paper 
underwent  a  most  searching  criticism  at  the  hands  of  Professor 
Wilkens,  of  New  York  University  and  I  wish  to  express  my 
especial  indetedness  to  him  for  his  assistance  in  the  matter. 
To  Professor  McLouth  my  thanks  are  due  for  a  constant  kindly 
interest  in  me  as  Ottendorfer  fellow.  Finally,  it  is  a  plesant 
duty  to  express  my  appreciation  of  the  benefits  derived  from 
that  Fellowship  and  to  thank  the  Committee  for  having  made 
me  its  third  incumbent.  G.  H.  D. 

Indianapolis,  Ind.,  September,  1911. 


TIECK'S  ESSAY  ON  THE  BOYDELL 
SHAKSPERE  GALLERY 


'T'lECK'S  attack1  on  the  Boydell  Shakspere  Gallery2  was  his  first 
1  publisht  critical  production.  It  is  significant  to  note  that 
this  first  essay  in  criticism  delt  both  with  Shakspere  and  with  art, 
that  is,  with  the  ruling  passion  of  Tieck's  life  and  with  one  of 
the  strongest  of  his  secondary  interests.  The  passion  for  Shak- 
spere with  the  concomitant  sense  of  close  personal  relationship 
with  him,  came  to  be  a  major  part  of  Tieck's  being  and  is  clearly 
indicated  even  before  this  article.3  Tieck's  decided  aversion  to 
the  English  national  standpoint  toward  Shakspere  is  strongly 
exprest  in  the  essay.  The  man  who  later  vainly  tried  to  convert 
Coleridge  to  a  point  of  view  with  respect  to  the  dramatist  that 
was  opposed  to  all  that  was  national  and  English,  does  not,  as  a 
mere  lad,  hesitate  to  venture  his  douts  as  to  whether  the  Eng- 
lish nation  is  equal  to  the  task  of  illustrating  its  greatest  poet.4 

These  illustrations  are  known  as  the  Boydell  Shakspere  Gal- 
lery. They  were  the  idea  of  the  engraver,  Alderman  John  Boy- 
dell,5 who  wisht  to  set  up  a  great  national  monument  to  the 
genius  of  Shakspere  and,  at  the  same  time,  to  foster  a  school  of 
historical  painting  in  a  land  where  heretofore  the  portrait  alone 
had  attaind  to  any  degree  of  excellence.6  The  "Gallery"  was 
begun  in  1789  and  was  completed  in  1803.  At  no  sparing  of  ex- 
pense to  himself — the  entire  cost  was  upward  of  ;£ioo,ooo — Boy- 
dell commissiond  some  of  the  best  artists  and  engravers  of  the 
time  to  portray  scenes  from  all  of  Shakspere's  plays.  The  oil 
paintings,  about  100  in  number,  were  to  be  permanently  housd 
in  a  gallery  bilt  for  the  purpose  in  London  and  were  to  be  bestowd 
on  the  nation  as  a  perpetual  memorial  to  the  great  playwright's 
genius.  The  Napoleonic  wars,  "that  Gothic  and  Vandalic  revo- 
lution," and  the  deth  in  poverty  of  Boydell,  renderd  necessary 
the  disposal  of  the  collection  by  lottery  (1804).  The  lucky  tick- 
et was  held  by  a  London  connoisseur  named  Tassie.  At  his  deth 
the  collection  was  scatterd,  tho  subsequently  a  few  of  the  pic- 
tures were  recollected  and  are  now  in  the  Shakspere  Memorial 
in  Stratford.7 


8 

The  plates  from  these  pictures  are,  all  in  all,  no  better  and  no 
worse  than  engravings  of  the  day  are  likely  to  be.  It  is  illustra- 
tion work  in  which  the  story  interest  is  the  predominant  feature. 
Interpretation  of  Shakspere  takes  precedence  over  art,  and  even 
Boydell  places  the  painter  below  the  poet  and  speaks  disparag- 
ingly of  the  ability  of  the  former  to  understand  and  to  portray. 
The  purposes  of  the  *  'Gallery"  harmonize  with  Tieck's  point  of 
view  and  his  predilection  for  the  interpretativ  in  criticism  min- 
imizes the  esthetic  aspects  of  his  discussion. 

Tieck's  essay  is  in  the  form  of  four  letters,  and  was  written 
while  he  was  a  student  at  the  University  of  Gottingen.  It  had 
the  approval  of  his  teacher,  Johann  Dominik  Fiorillo,  (himself 
afterward  well-known  as  the  author  of  an  extensiv  history  of  art,) 
tho  it  was  not  especially  written  under  Fiorillo's  gidance.8  It 
was  intended,  on  the  surface  at  least,  as  an  open  and  emfatic 
protest  agenst  the  too  lavish  praise  of  the  plates  in  the  journals. 
The  general  tone,  then,  is  polemic  tho  directed  agenst  no  par- 
ticular person  or  article. 

In  the  preface  to  his  critical  works9  Tieck  asserts  that  the  ar- 
ticle is  a  product  of  the  year  1793  and  that  it  was  published  in 
1794.  It  appeared  in  the  Neue  Bibliothek  der  schcenen  Wisscn- 
schaften  und  freyen  Kuenste,  55ten  Bandes  zweytes  Stiick,  pages 
187-226,  which  bears  the  date  1795, 10  and  according  to  the  Mess- 
katalog,  did  not  appear  till  Michaelmas  of  that  year.-1  Tieck's 
memory,  therefore,  faild  him  as  to  the  date  of  publication  and 
he  has  also  fallen  into  a  slite  error,  or  rather  inaccuracy,  in  re- 
gard to  the  time  of  origin.  The  article  could  not  have  been 
completed  within  the  calendar  year  1793,  because  a  number  of 
the  plates  that  Tieck  discusses  are  dated  December  24,  1793,  and 
could  hardly  hav  got  to  the  continent  in  the  same  year.  While 
it  may  be  possible  that  the  plates  were  postdated,  there  is  no  evi- 
dence of  such  fact  at  hand.  Moreover,  the  "Gallery"  was  re- 
viewd  in  the  Gaettinger  Gelehrte  Anzeigen  under  dates  about  six 
months  after  the  appearance  of  the  individual  plates  in  England 
and  these  reviews,  as  will  be  shown  hereafter,  were  extensivly 
used  by  Tieck.  In  these  reviews,  the  plates  are  always  spoken 
of  as  recently  arrived.  The  prints  were  issued  regularly  to  the 
subscribers,  of  whom  the  University,  according  to  the  Ms.  cata- 
log in  the  Boston  Public  Library,  was  one.12  It  is  hardly  to  be 


supposd  that  the  young  student  would  have  erlier  access  to  the 
pictures  than  the  reviewer  for  the  semi-official  university  publi- 
cation. This  reviewer  was  Heyne13  who  afterward  mediated  the 
publication  of  Tieck's  article.  The  article  was  no  dout  written 
before  Tieck  settled  in  Berlin  in  the  Fall  of  1794  but  its  writing 
went  out  over  the  confines  of  1793.  The  next  series  of  plates 
appeard  in  June,  1794,  and  is  not  included  in  Tieck's  article, 
tho  this  is  no  proof  that  the  article  was  completed  before  June, 
since  the  plates  probably  did  not  arrive  in  Germany  till  well  in 
the  Summer. 

Tieck's  essay  has  been  almost  entirely  neglected  by  Tieck 
scholars.  It  is  not  a  great  piece  of  constructiv  criticism,  nor 
can  it  be  said  to  contain  the  ripe  judgments  of  a  mature  mind. 
It  is,  however,  a  fresh  and,  on  the  whole,  convincing  analysis  of 
the  plates  and  as  such  deserves  a  careful  examination.  It  will 
be  seen  that  the  article  has  a  very  definit  foundation  in  preced- 
ing criticism  but  that  Tieck,  tho  borrowing  freely  from  one 
source  at  least,  namely  the  Gcettinger  Gelehrte  Anzeigen,  has  not 
slavishly  plagiarized  nor  has  he  been  servil  in  his  adoption  of  the 
ideas  of  others.  And  it  is  also  worth  noting  that  Tieck's  criti- 
cism was  regarded  as  sufficiently  authorativ  by  Fiorillo  to  have 
been  used  as  a  partial  source  for  the  latter's  critique  of  the  Boy- 
dell  plates. 

Tieck  claims  that  the  praise  of  the  "Gallery"  in  the  contem- 
porary magazines  is  excessiv.  This  claim  is  exaggerated.  Meny 
important  magazines  do  not  discuss  the  plates  even  where  there 
was  an  excellent  opportunity.  So,  for  example,  Wieland's  Mer- 
fur  and  Nicolai's  Allgemeine  deutsche  Bibliothek  do  not  mention 
them,  tho  from  time  to  time  engravings  from  other  contempor- 
ary paintings  are  discust.  For  instance,  Nicolai's  journal  has 
one  long  discussion  of  the  state  of  contemporary  art,  espe- 
cially of  engraving  (No.  no,  1792)  but  omits  all  reference 
to  the  Boydell  series.  The  criticism  in  Meusel's  Museum  fuer 
Kuenstler  is  on  the  whole,  destructiv.  One  discussion,  for 
example,  (No.  IV,  page  99)  is  a  violent  attack  on  engraving  in 
general  and  calls  the  "Gallery,"  "Diese  die  Malerei  zu  grunde 
richtende  Gelegenheit, "  and  condems  the  "Kramergeist"  at  the 
bottom  of  the  enterprize.  The  value  of  line  in  engraving  is, 
however,  pointed  out,  and  Bartolozzi  and  Ryland,  who  had  but 


10 

little  to  do  with  the  series  are  faintly  praisd.  Other  mention 
in  MeusePs  magazines  is  either  entirely  unoriginal  summary 
(Museum,  VI,  352)  or  mere  cursory  comment  (Miscellaneen, 
Stuck  30.)  The  articles  on  caricature  (Neue  Miscellaneen  X., 
154  and  Archiv  I,  66)  are  so  late  that  they  cannot  be  taken  into 
consideration  in  connection  with  Tieck's  paper. 

With  the  Gazttinger  Gelehrte  Anzeigen  the  case  is  different.14 
Tieck  saw  and  used  its  articles  as  a  basis  for  his  work,  tho  the 
credit  of  having  written  the  first  connected  essay  from  a  single 
viewpoint  belongs  to  him.  The  not  over  laudatory  criticisms  of 
the  Anzeigen  are  often  paralel,  even  down  to  the  wording  of  de- 
tails with  Tieck's  judgments,  but  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  sup- 
pose that  Tieck  used  the  articles  without  having  seen  the  en- 
gravings and  without  having  given  the  pictures  careful  consider- 
ation. The  fact  that  Tieck  follows  the  errors  of  the  Anzeigen 
is  significant,  but  it  is  equally  significant  that  he  corrects  the 
errors  of  the  magazine  from  his  stock  of  observd  judgments. 
Generally,  where  Tieck  follows  the  Anzeigen  most  closely  he  is 
at  his  worst.  The  somewhat  superficial  and  scanty  remarks  of 
the  journal  were  no  surrogate  for  the  clear  vision  and  power  of 
adaptibility  of  the  young  man.  Tieck's  personal  regard  for 
Shakspere,  which  amounted  to  a  real  passion,  was  entirely 
wanting. 

The  use  of  the  articles  in  the  Anzeigen  must  be  shown  in  de- 
tail, and  Tieck's  indetedness  must  be  definitly  brought  out. 
Paralels  will  sometimes  show  convergence  and  sometimes  diver- 
gence of  ideas,  but  in  general  it  will  be  seen  that  Tieck  practi- 
cally never  used  his  material  without  some  personal  addition. 

There  is  one  set  of  cases  which  is  peculiar  and  which  deservs 
special  attention.  The  plates  in  question  are:  "Much  Ado," 
III, i,  ditto  IV,  2,  and  "As  You  Like  It,"  last  scene. 

A  word  of  explanation  in  regard  to  the  Boydell  plates  is  nec- 
essary. From  the  original  paintings  there  were  two  sets  of 
plates  engraved,  known  as  the  .  large  plates  (L)  and  the  small 
plates  (S).  The  small  plates  were  in  all  but  a  few  cases  done 
from  different  pictures  than  were  the  large  ones.  These  large 
plates  are  those  usually  known  as  the  Boydell  Gallery.  Both 
sets  were  issued  serially;  the  large  set  was  also  bound  and  is- 
sued as  a  separate  volume  in  1803,  and  the  small  plates  were 


11 

used  as  illustrations  for  the  Steevens  Shakspere  edition  of  1802, 
the  letter  press  of  which  also  seems  to  have  been  issued  in  parts 
before  the  bound  volumes  were  finally  put  on  the  market.  The 
bulk  of  Tieck's  criticisms  applies  to  the  large  plates  tho  he  has 
a  few  remarks  on  the  small  ones  as  well.  When  he  discusses 
the  small  plates,  he  always  mentions  the  fact,  except  in  the 
three  cases  just  cited.  These  are  three  of  the  cases  where  L  and 
S  coincide  in  subject  matter  and  where  additional  S  plates  were 
afterwards  printed  as  a  gratuitous  gift  to  the  subscribers.15 
These  plates  are  among  the  first  discust  by  the  Anzeigen  (1791, 
page  1794)  which  mention  the  fact  of  the  plates  being  for  the 
Shakspere  edition,  and  that  the  extra  plates  are  to  be  furnisht 
to  make  up  for  the  duplication  of  subject  matter  in  these  cases 
of  L  and  S.  This  is  what  is  meant  by  the  sentence,  "Es  wird 
sogar  die  Austauschung  des  einen  Kupf  ers  kiinf  tig  versprochen, " 
a  statement  that  corresponds  perfectly  with  the  remark  in  the 
later  Boydell  catalog  that  this  promis  has  been  fulfild.  Tieck 
does  not  notis  this  statement  of  the  Anzeigen  but  treats  these  S 
plates  as  if  they  were  L,  yet  gives  the  names  of  the  engravers 
of  S.  This  would  look  like  a  clear  case  of  careless  copying 
from  the  Anzei&cn  if  it  were  not  clear  from  the  additions  that 
Tieck  makes  to  the  latter's  criticism  that  he  saw  the  plates  too. 
The  explanation  of  the  discrepancy  may  be  that  Tieck  when  he 
was  writing  his  article  consulted  the  Anzeigen  for  the  facts  in 
regard  to  the  engravers,  did  not  notis  that  the  S  plates  were  re- 
ferd  to  and  carelessly  copied  down  what  he  saw. 

I  shall  now  examin  in  detail  some  of  the  paralel  criticisms. 

Much  Ado,  II;  4,  G.  G.  A.  1791,  page  1794:  .  .  .  "wo  in  der 
Trauung  statt  des  Jaworts  Pedro  die  Hero  fiir  keine  reine  Jung- 
fer  erklart,  und  Hero  in  Ohnmacht  fallt;  .  .  .  Das  beste  Stuck 
von  alien  in  Riicksicht  der  Composition,  Ausdrucks  und  Auswahl 
des  Lichtes  nur  ist  die  Stellung  der  Hauptperson  ein  wenig  zu 
theatralisch;  sonst  aber  alles  gut  geordnet;  schone  Contraste 
von  Licht  und  Ruhe  fiir  das  Auge. " 

Tieck,  page  19:  "Das  zweite  Blatt  enthalt  die  Vertossung 
der  Hero  .  .  .  und  dies  ist  offenbar  eines  der  vorziiglichsten. 
Das  Licht  ist  sehr  gut  geordnet,  das  Auge  findet  sogleich  unter 
den  Gruppen  einen  Ruhepunkt;  nur  hat  Hamilton  dem  Claudio 
eine  zu  theatralische  Stellung  und  dem  Leonato  zu  wenig  Aus- 
druck  gegeben." 


12 

Tieck  carries  the  praise  of  the  Anzeigen,  the  "Das  beste 
Stiick"  of  which  refers  only  to  the  group  under  immediate  dis- 
cussion, to  the  whole  series.  He  takes  his  main  critical  vocabu- 
lary from  the  prototype  and  adds  the  original  differentiation  of 
Claudio  and  Leonato  to  which  reference  must  be  made  later. 

"Much  Ado,"  IV,  2;  G.  G.  A.,  1791,  page  1794:  .  .  .  "ein 
Gemisch  von  verkruppelten,  unedeln  Caricaturen  ohne  alle 
Grazie  .  .  .  Zu  bedauren  ist  die  Kunst,  die  an  den  Stich 
verwendet  ist;  denn  der  Stich  ist  einer  der  besten. "  Tieck's 
criticism  of  this  plate  is  paralel  in  so  far  as  he  praises  the  me- 
chanical perfection  of  the  engraver,  who  is  Heath  of  S,  and  not 
Simon  of  L.  So  far  we  have  the  blind  following  of  the  model. 
But  Tieck  also  makes  the  picture  a  basis  for  a  long  discussion  of 
caricature  and  of  thoro  condemnation  of  Smirke,  who  is  also  no 
favorit  of  the  Anzeigen.  As  Tieck's  letters  show  a  profuse  use 
of  the  word  caricature,  he  need  not  be  especially  indeted  to  the 
Anzeigen  for  it. 

"Richard  III,"  I,  I,  G.  G.  A.,  1791,  page  1795.  Here  Tieck's 
borrowing  is  direct.  G.  G.  A.:  "Eine  schlechte  Composition, 
ohne  Ausdruck. "  Tieck,  page  27:  "Die  Composition  ist  schlecht, 
alle  Figuren  sind  ohne  Ausdruck."  G.  G.  A.:  "Eine  Menge  Re- 
flexe,  Wiederscheine  s.  w.  aber  alles  dieses  macht  keine  Wir- 
kung,  und  das  Auge  findet  keinen  Ruhepunkt. "  Tieck,  page  28: 
"und  sucht  durch  unendlich  viele  Wiederscheine  . 
dass  das  Auge  bei  den  vielen  Lichtmassen  gar  keine  Ruhe  fin- 
det."  But  again,  besides  these  verbal  and  associational  paralels, 
Tieck  has  added  a  free  treatment  of  the  composition,  an  exam- 
ination of  the  drawing  of  the  figures,  of  which  there  is  no  hint 
in  the  model  and,  all  in  all,  makes  the  criticism  his  own.  The 
impulse  certainly  came  from  the  Anzeigen^  but  the  whole  crit- 
ique is  a  product  of  Tieck's  self. 

"Richard  III,"  IV,  3,  G.  G.  A.,  1791,  page  1795:  "Stellung 
gezwungen."  Tieck,  page  28.  "Der  Morder  unnaturlich. " 
Here  Tieck  borrowed  the  idea  and  after  an  examination  of  the 
plate  changed  the  wording. 

"As  You  Like  It,"  II,  i,  G.  G.  A.,  1793,  page  561:  "Em 
treffliches  Landschaf tsgemalde. "  Tieck,  page  18:  "die  reizende 
Landschaft. "  An  examination  of  the  whole  of  Tieck's  criticism 
shows  that  he  has  added  a  characterization  of  Jacques,  has  dis- 


13 

cust  the  choice  of  this  particular  subject,  and  in  this  connection 
shows  especially  that  the  plate  under  discussion  is  only  a  vignette 
to  the  plays  and  not  a  part  of  the  real  play  itself. 

"As  You  Like  It,"  last  scene,  G.  G.  A.,  1793,  pages  561-2: 
"Orlando,  der  mit  zeimleich  ausgespreizeten  Beinen. "  Tieck, 
page  18:  "Seine  augespreizten  Beine  machen  ihn  widrig. " 
Here  Tieck  has  taken  an  externality  of  the  description  and  has 
given  it  a  point.  The  use  of  the  word  "widrig"  gives  a  new 
tuch. 

"Romeo  and  Juliet,"  I,  5,  G.  G.  A.:  "die  Hauptfiguren  muss 
mansuchen."  Tieck,  page  29:  "Die  Hauptfiguren  findet  man 
nur  mit  einiger  Miihe. "  Notis,  however,  how  Tieck  then  goes  on 
independently  to  giv  his  own  point:  "den  Vater  der  Julie  kann 
man  nur  errathen;  Julie  selbst  hat  wenig  Character.  Tybald 
ist  die  ausdruckvollste  Figur  auf  diesem  Blatte. "  Tieck  also 
quotes  in  full  the  passage  beginning,  "If  I  profane  with  my  un- 
worthy hand"  which  the  Anzeigen  only  indicates.  This  might 
be  laid  to  yuthful  pedantry,  were  the  whole  not  made  far 
clearer  for  the  entire  citation. 

"Romeo and  Juliet,"  IV,  5,  G.  G.  A.,  562:  "Julia  nach  genom- 
menem  Schlaftrunk  fur  todt  gehalten,  mit  den  Worten  des 
Monchs:  Peace  ho  for  shame!  ff.  Dieser  trostend,  die  Mutter 
die  Hande  ringend,  Paris  Julien  umfassend,  ein  Stuck  mit  vielem 
Affect"  .  .  .  Tieck,  page  30:  "Julie  hat  den  Schlaftrunk  ge- 
nommen  und  scheint  gestorben,  ihre  Aeltern  sowie  ihr  Brauti- 
gam  Paris  sind  in  Verzweifelung,  der  Pater  sucht  Alle  zu  tros- 
ten. "  In  the  discussion  of  the  small  plate  which  follows,  the 
Anzeigen  points  out  the  changes  which  have  been  made  on  it, 
this  being  one  of  the  supplementary  small  plates  for  the  1802 
text  edition.  Tieck  also  notises  the  fact  of  the  change  but  that 
he  took  his  information  not  only  from  the  Anzeigen  but  from  an 
examination  of  the  original  is  proved  by  his  additions  to  the  in- 
formation of  the  Anzeigen.  Tieck's  comment  is,  "Mehrere  un- 
nutze  Personen  weggelassen. "  This  reason  goes  at  least  one 
step  farther  than  the  Anzeigen  comment.  In  the  magazine,  the 
effect  of  the  double  light  in  L  is  adversly  criticized.  Tieck  adds 
to  this,  "Der  alte  Capulet  hat  auf  beiden  Blattern  wenig  Aus- 
druck. "  That  both  Tieck  and  the  magazine  use  the  fraze  "tut 
.  .  .  Wirkung"  in  this  place  seems  of  secondary  importance. 


14 

A  mere  linguistic  reminiscence,  where  it  is  not  connected  with 
an  idea,  is  not  influence.  This  must  be  sought  in  basic  ideas,  in 
hints  which  point  the  way  for  new  lines  of  thought,  in  an  adop- 
tion of  facts.  An  author  like  Tieck  shows  independence  when 
he  adds,  eliminates  and  remolds  what  he  receives,  even  tho  the 
form  of  the  thought  clings  often  to  him. 

So,  then,  when  the  Anzeigen  (1793,  page  562)  has  the  fraze 
"Julie  in  dem  Grabgewolbe  erwachend,"  the  fact  that  Tieck 
(page  30)  introduces  his  criticism  with  the  words,  "Julie  erwacht, 
als  der  Monch  eben  in  das  Gewolbe  tritt,"  is  of  slite  conse- 
quence. This  is  a  simple  description  of  fact.  Of  much  more 
importance  is  the  fact  that  the  magazine  goes  on  to  point  out 
that  not  nature  but  the  stage  should  be  the  model  for  the  painter 
in  this  case,  a  doctrin  which  Tieck  not  only  does  not  mention, 
but  in  fact,  utterly  rejects  when  the  time  comes  to  discuss  it  in 
the  course  of  the  treatment. 

In  the  criticism  of  Schiavonetti's  plate  after  Angelica  Kauf- 
mann(G.  G.  A.,  1793,  page  903;  Tieck,  pages  16-17)  Tieck  agrees 
with  the  Anzeigen  but  is  thoroly  independent  in  his  reson- 
ing  and  adds  constantly  to  what  the  magazine  asserts.  That 
both  find  the  disguisd  Julia  beautiful  is  not  unresonable,  and 
as  the  disguise  is  a  part  of  the  play  it  is  not  strange  that  Tieck 
mentions  it.  In  the  same  section  of  the  magazine  is  a  passage 
which  finds  a  later  echo  in  Tieck.  "Konig  Lear  reisst  sich  die 
Kleider  vom  Leibe"  (903).  Tieck  (32):  "und  reisst  sich  endlich 
die  Kleider  ab. "  The  verbal  paralelism  has  significance  here 
only  because  there  are  other  hints  at  this  time  which  may  hav 
aided  Tieck:  e.  g.,  the  fact  that  the  artist  has  departed  from 
the  scene  as  Shakspere  portrayd  it.  Tieck  is  definit  in  stating 
just  who  is  added,  which  proves  that  he  knew  his  Shakspere 
and  saw  the  plate.  Tieck  also  points  out  the  spiritual  difference 
between  Shakspere  and  the  "famous  West,"  a  distinct  addition 
to  the  matter  in  the  Anzeigen.  "Winter's  Tale,"  II,  3,  G.  G. 
A.,  1794,  page  9:  "Der  eifersiichtige  Leontes  lasst  den  Antigo- 
nous  bey  seinem  ihm  vorgehalten  Schwerte  schworen,  dass  er 
das  Kind,  das  ihm  seine  Gemahlin  geboren  hatte,  in  eine  Einode 
aussetzen  will.  Sind  gemeine  Figuren."  Notis  how  in  Tieck, 
while  the  general  terms  of  the  description  are  the  same,  because 
following  the  line  of  least  resistance  in  externalities,  the  whole 


15 

discussion  takes  on  an  individual  character,  and  is  expanded 
into  a  critique  of  Opie's  drawing  which  was  always  unsatisfac- 
tory to  Tieck.  Tieck  (page  21):  "Der  eifersiichtige  Leontes 
lasst  den  Antigonus  schworen,  das  Kind  auszusetzen.  . 
An  den  Darstellungen  aus  diesem  Stticke  ist  viel  zu  tadeln,  vor- 
ziiglich  an  dieser  ersten  Scene.  Leontes,  die  Hauptperson,  ist 
steif  und  ohne  alien  Ausdruck,  alle  iibrigen  Personen  sind  dick 
und  plump  gezeichnet  und  ganz  ohne  alle  Bedeutung.  Leontes 
lasst  den  Antigonus,  so  wie  Hamlet  seine  Gefahrten,  bei  seinem 
Schwerte  schworen.  Schauspieler  und  Zeichner  aber  fehlen, 
wenn  sie  es  so  vorstellen,  wie  Opie  es  hier  gethan  hat.  Die 
alten  Schwerter  bilden  oben  am  Griffe  ein  Kreuz  und  auf  dieses 
legte  man  die  Hand,  in  Ermangelung  eines  eigentlichen  Cruci- 
fixes. ...  In  diesem  Blatte  entdecken  sich  auch  bald 
viele  Fehler  in  der  Zeichnung.  Das  Auge  wird  von  der  Haupt- 
person auf  die  Lichtmasse,  folglich,  auf  das  Kind  hingezogen; 
die  Hauptfigur  tritt  gar  nicht  genug  hervor,  sondern  hangt  mit 
den  hinterihr  stehenden  zusammen;  die  Kopfe  im  Hintergrunde 
sind  eben  so  gross,  wie  die  der  vorderen  Personen.  Alles  ver- 
rath  denungeubten  Kiinstler."  As  an  example  of  Tieck's  rejec- 
tion of  the  opinion  of  the  G.  G.  A.,  the  discussion  of  "Winter's 
Tale,"  V,  3,  will  suffice.  This  is  the  statue  scene  which  Tieck 
absolutely  condems  on  account  of  poor  engraving,  expression 
and  posing.  Where  the  magazine  says  "Die  Statue,  der  man  es 
doch  sehn  gut  ansieht,  das  es  eine  lebende  Figur  ist,  macht 
grosse  Wirkung."  Tieck  (22)  contradicts  thus:  "Die  Statue  ist 
sehr  unnatiirlich,  sie  sieht  mehr  einem  Geiste,  als  einem  Men- 
schen  ahnlich." 

There  are,  finally,  three  further  cases  in  which  Tieck  takes  a 
hint  from  the  Anzeigen  and  develops  it.  "2  Henry  VI,"  III,  3, 
(i794»  page  10):  "Kardinal  Beauford  .  .  .  ein  scheuslicher 
Anblick,  in  mehr  als  einem  Verstande. "  Tieck  (page  25): 
"Dieses  abscheuliche  Blatt. "  But  Tieck,  in  a  passage  too  long 
to  quote,  goes  on  to  giv  cogent  reasons  for  not  liking  the  pic- 
ture, not  one  of  which  is  derived  from  the  Anzeigen.  The  other 
passages  from  the  "Merry  Wives"  (I,  I  and  II,  I,  G.  G.  A.,  1794, 
page  970;  Tieck,  11-12)  take  the  hint  that  Smirke  drew  carica- 
tures and  not  human  beings  and  borrow  the  adjectiv  "widrig. " 
With  this  slender  borrowing  Tieck  develops  a  full  discussion  of 


16 

Smirke  and  of  these  plates  with  no  further  assistance  from  the 
Anzeigen  than  a  hint  on  the  engraving  of  textiles. 

These  passages  on  "Henry  VI"  and  on  the  "Merry  Wives"  are 
doubly  interesting,  however,  because  they  show  that  Tieck's 
judgment  of  Smirke  and  Northcote  offers  a  very  close  paralel  to 
that  of  the  magazine.  Tieck's  reasons  are  fuller,  but  they  show 
no  more  ability  in  Tieck  than  in  the  reviewer  of  the  Anzeigen  to 
understand  some  of  the  most  characteristic  features  of  English 
humor  as  exemplified  in  Smirke,  while  the  pupil  and  biografer  of 
Sir  Joshua  fares  badly  because  of  his  alleged  bad  composition 
and  poor  light  effects.  It  will  be  shown  later  that  on  both  of 
these  latter  questions  Tieck  held  views  quite  independent  of  the 
A  nzeigen. 

Of  Kirk's  plate  from  "Titus  Adronicus"  the  G.  G.  A.,  1794, 
page  970,  says,  "Den  Ausdruck  an  der  Lavinia  abgerechnet 
ein  gut  Stuck."  Tieck  (28)  begins  with  a  weak,  "an  dem 
Blatte  .  ist  vielleicht  viel  zu  loben  und  wenig  zu  tadeln" 

but  "rights  himself  like  a  soldier"  thus,  "Man  sieht,  dass  der 
Kiinstler  eine  sehr  richtige  Idee  von  der  Composition  hat,  und 
dass  er  seinem  Gegenstand  mit  Geschmack  und  Delicatesse  zu 
behandeln  weiss.  Er  lasst  uns  die  abgeschnittenen  Arme  der 
Lavinia  nur  vermuthen;  der  geschickt  geworfene  Schleier  ent- 
zieht  unserm  Auge  den  unangenehmen  Anblick, "  etc. 

The  examples  and  paralels  alredy  given  cover  practically  all  of 
the  points  of  similarity  between  Tieck  and  his  model.  They 
show  that  Tieck  used  the  Anzeigen  constantly  and  minutely  but 
they  can  not  fail  to  impress  the  reader  with  the  fact  that  Tieck 
invariably  rises  above  the  plane  of  the  jottings  in  the  magazine 
in  form  and  in  substance.  The  content  of  Tieck's  criticisms  is  very 
much  greater  than  that  of  his  prototype  and  the  form  is  far  more 
polisht.  These  apercus  of  Heyne  did  not  prevent  Tieck's  inde- 
pendent thinking;  they  never  fettered  him.  He  followd  them 
in  a  number  of  places  in  his  paper  and  once  or  twice  falls  into 
their  error  thru  youthful  carelessness  or  misapprehension.  They 
did  not  often  confuse  his  judgment  or  hamper  his  vision.  He 
never  ruthlessly  plagiarizd  them.  That  they  were  a  source  can 
not  be  denied,  but  that  they  form  the  real  basis  of  Tieck's 
critique  is  not  for  a  moment  tenable.  This  came  unquestionably 
from  himself,  and  he  must  be  given  credit  or  blame  for  the  good 
or  bad  in  it. 


17 

Tieck  set  about  the  task  of  criticising  the  "Boydell  Gallery" 
with  no  diffidence,  but  with  many  misgivings,  amounting  almost 
to  prejudises,  as  to  the  valu  of  the  set  of  plates.  He  was  aware 
that  this  work  was  intrinsically  in  a  class  which  is,  all  in  all,  ar- 
tistically inferior.  His  judgments  are  objectiv,  but  they  promis 
no  prescience  of  a  higher,  a  more  spiritual  attitude  toward  art. 
Art  in  this  case  servs  interpretation  and  the  struggle  away  from 
what  the  plates  represent  has  hardly  commenced.  Tieck  feels 
that  the  whole  group  does  not  do  Shakspere  justis,  but  he  no- 
where says  that  the  subjectiv  interpretation  of  the  poet  must  re- 
main the  lasting  one  for  the  individual;  indeed  he  asserts  quite 
the  contrary  on  the  very  first  page  of  his  paper.  It  is  to  be  ex- 
pected that  Tieck's  common  sense  and  fancy  should  rebel  at  the 
platitudinarianism  of  the  pictures;  that  at  times  he  is  no  more 
than  on  the  plane  of  the  sentimental  '  'Enlightenment"  is  also 
to  be  expected.  The  valu  of  the  study  is  in  such  harsh  nega- 
tiv  criticism  as  it  exercises  where  emfasis  is  false  or  where  bad 
taste  prevails  in  the  performance  of  the  artists'  task. 

Tieck  came  to  the  work  with  a  good  first-hand  knowledge  of 
Shakspere  and  this  lessens  the  juvenile  and  jejune  qualities  of 
his  work.  He  is  weaker  on  the  comedies  than  on  the  trajedies, 
for  the  former  require  a  keener  sensing  of  English  life  than  it 
was  possible  for  Tieck  to  hav  obtaind  at  the  time  of  writing. 
But  even  for  the  comedies,  some  of  his  observations  are  very 
just  and  show  that  he  could  interpret  Shakspere  with  sense  and 
precision.  The  present  discussion  will  attempt  to  find  out  by  a 
careful  examination  of  the  plates  just  what  Tieck  saw  in  these 
pictures  and  how  far  his  interpretation  was  right.  The  results 
should  show,  in  a  general  way,  something  of  the  powers  of  inter- 
pretation possest  by  the  youthful  Tieck,  and  how  this  power  of 
interpretation  conditiond  his  judgments. 

The  general  theoretical  standpoint  upon  which  the  essay  was 
written  is  that  of  Lessing,  and  a  careful  perusal  will  show  that 
Haym  was  wrong  when  he  postulated  no  Lessing  influence  on 
the  article.16  Tieck's  letters  to  Wackenroder  show  that  he  was 
reading  the  Laokoon  at  this  time,  but  even  if  a  preoccupation 
with  Lessing  were  not  easily  postulable,  the  matter  of  the  paper 
itself  will  show  a  distinct  recrudescence  of  Lessing's  ideas.  And 
not  only  Lessing,  but  the  school  of  critics  out  of  which  Lessing 


18 

arose,  e.  g.,  Winkelmann  and  DuBos,  were  also  a  part  of  Tieck's 
reading.17 

The  article  has  a  total  lack  of  coloristic  reflexes;  it  emfasizes 
form,  if  not  line;  its  thoro  reasonableness  takes  into  considera- 
tion all  that  Lessing  has  stood  for  in  the  domain  of  art.  It  has 
the  same  standpoint  as  that  of  a  Goethe  returnd  from  Italy  and 
of  a  Karl  Philipp  Moritz  from  whom,  to  be  sure,  Tieck  was  turn- 
ing away  in  disgust.18 

The  article  fails  to  solv  the  problem  in  Tieck's  mind  of  re- 
conciling his  natural  desire  away  from  the  regulated  and  calm 
with  the  current  and  traditional  in  British  art.  The  conflict  is 
between  a  desire  in  theory  for  moderated  effects,  for  the  toning 
down  of  emotion,  and  a  desire,  in  practis,  for  strong  contrast 
and  superlativ  effects.  Lessing,  in  art  the  enemy  of  all  realism, 
finds  in  Tieck  a  condemer  of  Hogarth,  a  condemnation  that 
persists  in  Tieck  as  late  as  the  essay  on  the  erly  English  Theater 
(i828),19  and  persists  on  grounds  similar  to  the  fundamental 
principle  of  beauty  laid  down  by  Lessing. 

It  would  be  a  mistake  to  argu  from  the  foregoing  that  in  this 
article  Tieck  was  not  a  realist,  or  at  least  strongly  inclined  toward 
realism  in  his  practis.  His  realism  was  that  of  the  yung  enthus- 
iast for  whom  each  variation  from  the  sense  of  his  idol  was  a 
blasfemy,  and  he  points  out  (page  24)  that  there  can  be  none  of 
that  deception  of  the  senses  which  is  a  part  of  the  pictorial  arts 
where  "ich  irgend  eine  auffallende  Unnatiirlichkeit  entdecke; 
denn  die  Nachahmung  der  Natur  ist  der  Zweck  des  Kiinstlers. " 
Such  strict  imitation  of  nature  is  more  to  be  expected,  to  be 
sure,  in  the  work  of  the  lesser  lights,  such  as  are  the  men  who 
did  the  pictures  for  the  "Gallery,"  than  in  the  work  of  a  real 
genius,  and  one  is  glad  to  overlook,  in  the  works  of  the  latter, 
those  minor  faults  which  almost  entirely  disappear  in  the  face 
of  a  thousand  beauties.  So,  says  Tieck  (page  14)  "who  would 
pass  by  the  divine  masterpieces  of  a  Rafael  and  yet  with  weighty 
mien  find  fault  with  the  bad  coloring  of  a  single  garment?" 
There  are  clearly  two  kinds  of  artist.  The  one  is  the  genius  who 
may  be  carried  too  far  by  his  enthusiasm,  the  other  is  the  colder 
painter,  who  by  his  choice  of  subject,  composition,  correctness 
of  drawing,  and  grace  must  make  up  for  his  lack  of  genius,  and 
who  can  not  hope  to  attain  the  emotional  effects  of  his  rival, 


19 

but  who  must  be  content  to  arouse  a  cooler  feeling,  that  is,  the 
satisfaction  of  the  spectator.  In  this  series,  where  genius  is  ex- 
cluded from  the  outset,  Tieck  expects  a  strict  adherence  to  fact, 
to  verisimilitude,  and  the  correct  interpretation  of  Shakspere 
must  be  insisted  on. 

In  order  that  the  soul  may  get  an  immediate  enjoyment  of  the 
work  of  art,  Tieck  recommends  (page  4)  that  the  painter  choose 
well-known  subjects.  He  says:  "The  soul  passes  immediately 
to  the  enjoyment  of  the  work  of  art  and  curiosity  does  not  stand 
in  the  way  of  his  enjoyment  as  in  the  case  of  obscure  or  unknown 
subjects.  I  am  alredy  prepared  for  the  sentiment  that  the  work 
of  art  is  to  arouse  in  me,  and  surrender  myself  all  the  more  will- 
ingly to  the  illusion.  If  the  subject  of  the  picture  is  in  itself 
beautiful  and  sublime,  or  if  a  great  poet  has  furnisht  the  painter 
with  the  invention,  the  composition  and  the  emotions,  our  en- 
thusiasm is  arousd,  we  giv  our  wonder  and.  our  delight  to  the 
painter." 

The  painter,  then,  is  only  an  interpreter  of  the  poet,  whose 
purpose  it  is  to  seize  the  spirit  of  the  poet,  to  portray  those  fine 
and  spiritual  ideas  which  only  a  related  genius  can  grasp  and 
make  concrete  by  an  appeal  to  the  senses  thru  color-magic20  the 
intangible  creations  of  the  poet's  brain.  He  makes  lasting  what 
the  reader  gets  but  a  fleeting  glimpse  of,  and  what  even  the 
actor  can  giv  but  little  permanence  (page  3).21 

Whether  or  not  Tieck  was  influenced  by  the  prospectus  to  the 
set,  indeed,  whether  he  saw  it  or  not,  there  is  no  way  of  know- 
ing, but  his  statement  that  these  pictures  in  their  entirety  will 
form  a  national  gallery  of  historical  paintings  which  will  drive 
the  scenes  from  Greek  mythology  out  of  England,  is  much  like 
BoydelPs  own  statement  of  purpose  mentiond  above.  It  is  also 
an  erly  paralel  to  the  Romantic  insistence  on  a  new  mythology, 
a  nativ  mythology,  rather  than  one  drawn  from  foren  sources 
which  was  a  part  of  Friedrich  SchlegePs  canon. 

The  engravings  as  such  are  treated  by  Tieck  under  five  differ- 
ent heds.  These  are:  the  mechanical  technique,  drawing  with 
perspectiv  and  line,  composition  (which  Tieck  does  not  clearly 
differentiate  from  design),  expression  and  choice  of  subject. 
These  five  heds  comprize  all  the  points  in  which  the  pictures 
are  treated,  but  not  each  picture  is  treated  from  all  five.  The 


20 

five  giv,  however,  the  full  range  of  Tieck's  ideas  on  the  engrav- 
ings. They  show  the  things  that  attracted  his  attention,  and 
where  the  influence  of  the  Anzeigen  is  felt,  they  serv  to  show 
how  different,  after  all,  his  own  ideas  were.  Often  the  maga- 
zine does  not  tuch  one  or  more  points  of  the  five. 

Tieck's  discussion  of  the  technique  of  the  engravings  is,  as 
may  be  expected,  rather  thin,  and  the  frazes  that  he  uses  are 
stereotyped.  Several  of  the  plates  praisd  by  him  are  quite  with- 
out merit  and  such  generalities  as,  "schon  gestochen,"  "vor- 
ziiglich,"  "vortrefflich  gut,"  are  not  very  significant.  Negativ 
praise  like  "nichts  zu  tadeln"  or  "die  Ausf tinning  verdient  alles 
Lob"  show  that  on  technical  points  Tieck  was  judging  very 
superficially  and  that  his  attention  to  the  "Gallery"  had  been 
attracted  by  something  else  than  the  perfection  of  the  plates. 

These  engravings  are  in  the  now  old-fashiond  stipple,  tho 
parts  of  them  are  in  line.  At  the  time  of  writing,  Tieck  may 
not  hav  known  the  difference  between  line  and  stipple,  tho  in 
"Zerbino"  a  reference  to  the  "pointed  manner,"  used  in  a  pun- 
ning way,  shows  that  by  that  time  Tieck  had  become  acquainted 
with  it.22  Nor  does  Tieck  indicate  in  any  way  the  "Gallery's" 
sparing  use  of  the  increasingly  popular  mezzotint.  He  makes 
no  mention  of  the  line  manner  of  Flaxman,  if  he  knew  him.  He 
does  not  see  that  the  line  engravings  in  the  set  are  poorer  all 
thru  than  the  stipple  prints,  and  that  in  some  of  the  line  plates 
the  cutting  is  so  deep  and  the  execution  so  clumsy  that  the  result- 
ing plates  are  muddy  and  crude  and  are  lacking  in  tone,  grace, 
and  even  in  exactness  of  execution. 

In  one  or  two  places  where  satin  is  excellently  reproduced, 
Tieck  praises  the  texture  of  the  fabrics.  The  large  plate  by  Si- 
mon from  the  "Merry  Wives"  has  a  wonderful  lace  apron  which 
a  recent  writer  on  engraving  has  cald  one  of  the  best  examples 
of  the  stipple  manner.23  As  Tieck  refers  to  the  other  fabrics  on 
the  plate,  which  is  one  of  those  with  duplicated  subject  and 
which  in  the  Anzeigen  seems  only  to  hav  been  discust  in  the  S 
form,  it  seems  clear  that  Tieck  also  saw  L  here,  as  S  is  by  no 
means  so  fine  a  plate;  in  fact  L  has  the  best  fabrics  in  the  series. 

Of  the  twenty-four  large  plates  discust  by  Tieck,  there  are 
only  thirteen  which  receive  technical  criticisms  and  of  these 
thirteen,  three  are  lumpt  together  under  one  comment  so  that 


21 

in  all  there  are  only  ten  separate  technical  criticisms.  Of  these, 
six  occur  in  the  first  six  plates  and  with  the  eighteenth  plate, 
Kirk's  scene  from  "Titus  Andronicus,"  the  criticism  of  the  me- 
chanical side  ends  with  a  weak,  "sehr  gut  gestochen,"  showing 
that  Tieck  did  not  progress  in  his  technical  criticisms.  His  in- 
terest in  the  engravings  as  engravings  waned  as  the  essay  pro- 
ceeded: it  never  rose  above  an  attention  to  textiles  and,  even 
there,  Tieck  did  not  see  all  the  finer  differentiations  of  velvet, 
chiffon  and  lace,  tho  the  fine  satins  distinctly  appeald  to  him. 
Perhaps  as  fair  an  example  as  any  of  his  inexactness,  is  his 
praise  of  the  plate  from  "As  You  Like  It"  in  which  Jacques  lies 
watching  the  wounded  deer  (II,  i).  This  is  one  of  the  poorest 
of  the  plates  and  yet  Tieck  says,  "Die  Ausfiihrung  verdient  alles 
Lob."  Fittler's  plate  from  "Winter's  Tale"  (IV,  2),  while 
weak  and  without  character,  is  not  as  bad  either  in  actual  cut- 
ting or  in  general  managment,  and  yet  Tieck  condems  it  unmer- 
cifully. So,  too,  the  bad  plates  by  Middiman  come  in  for  no 
special  condemnation  from  Tieck,  tho  Middiman  is  by  far  the 
worst  engraver  in  the  series,  and  is  particularly  bad  after  Hodges, 
the  plates  after  whom  Tieck  saw.24 

Drawing,  as  such,  fares  rather  better  than  engraving,  tho  less 
than  half  the  pictures  are  criticized  from  this  standpoint.  Col- 
orless expressions  like  "Keine  Fehler"  and  "Viele  Fehler"  are 
not  wanting  and  in  many  cases  where  whole  bodies  are  out  of 
drawing  or  where  individual  parts  are  bad  Tieck  has  nothing 
to  say. 

It  is  especially  interesting  to  note  that  Tieck  finds  the  draw- 
ing of  Angelika  Kaufmann  without  error.  ("Two  Gent.  Ve- 
rona," last  scene).  Here  he  declares  that  no  clumsy  clothing 
conceals  the  figures,  but  the  lines  are  well  brought  out  under  the 
garments.  The  disguised  Julia  is  at  once  recognizable  in  spite  of 
her  masculin  attire,  and  the  manner  of  the  artist  is  "grazios." 
An  examination  of  the  figure  shows  that  Julia's  figure  has  some- 
thing of  the  immature  in  it  and  that  the  face  is  rather  boyish. 
One  thinks  at  once  of  the  somewhat  malicious  words  of  Friedrich 
Schlegel  to  his  brother,  "Wie  Angelika  Kaufmann,  der  die  Busen 
und  Hiiften,  auch  immer  wie  von  selbst  aus  den  Fingern  quel- 
len. "  Both  Tieck  and  Schlegel  felt  the  sensuous  charm  of  the 
painter  whose  best  known  self-portrait  is  in  the  garb  of  a  Vestal 


22 

Virgin,  tho  the  Schlegels,  like  Georg  Forster,    had  no  illusions 
as  to  the  qualities  of  her  art.25 

Engravings  in  stipple  emfasize  less  than  line  engravings  mere 
questions  of  drawing.  It  is  perhaps  with  some  instinctiv  feel- 
ing for  this  that  Tieck  suggests  that  one  of  Hamilton's  pictures 
has  been  hurt  by  the  bad  engraving,  just  as  certain  other  plates 
have  gaind  thru  the  engraver  (page  22).  The  hint  for  this  point 
came  originally  from  the  Anzeigen  but  Tieck  has  developt  it. 
While  it  is  now  no  longer  possible  to  check  up  each  plate  with 
its  corresponding  picture,  it  is  true  that  the  engravers  were 
relatively  better  craftsmen,  as  a  rule,  than  the  painters.  In 
hardly  any  one  case  is  the  painting  a  sample  of  the  best  work  of 
the  artist.  Often,  as  in  the  case  of  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds,  the 
painting  redounds  but  little  to  his  credit.26  Where,  as  in  the 
case  of  Barry,  Sir  Joshua's  great  rival,  the  picture  is  reckond 
with  his  superior  work,  the  only  conclusion  is  that  Barry  was  a 
very  bad  artist  and  so  Tieck  considers  him.  The  engravers,  on 
the  other  hand,  had  had  no  better  chance  in  years  to  exhibit 
their  art  than  in  this  imposing  series,  and  most  of  the  best 
names  in  stipple  appear  in  it.  The  best  that  Tieck  does  to  rec- 
ognize this  fact  is  in  the  occasional  lament  for  the  waste  of  good 
labor  on  a  bad  subject  or  painting  (e.  g.,  page  20). 

Besides  having  the  good  feeling  for  the  human  form  under  the 
garment,  as  in  the  case  of  the  figure  of  Julia  and  of  those  of 
Mrs.  Ford  and  Mrs.  Page  by  Smirke,  Tieck  also  criticizes  several 
cases  of  misdrawing.  So,  the  clumsy  legs  of  one  of  Opie's 
figures  are  scored  and  in  blaming  this  failing  of  Opie,  Tieck  hits 
one  of  the  most  pronounced  weaknesses  of  that  artist  both  in 
the  "Gallery"  and  in  Bell's  British  Theater.  But  Opie,  the 
"Comedy  Wonder,"  is  hardly  the  "ungeiibter  Kiinstler"  that 
Tieck  makes  him  out  to  be.  Here  Tieck,  following  the  criticism 
of  the  Anzeigen,  from  which  he  may  have  got  the  hint  on  Opie's 
drawing,  develops  the  criticism  too  far  and  goes  astray.  There 
is  a  constant  suspicion  that  Tieck  is  trying  to  master  a  jargon. 

Often  it  is  a  mere  chance  whether  Tieck  will  see  or  not  see  a. 
peculiarity.     Some    of  the  sentimental,    foolish,    and   misdrawn 
hands  escape  his  notis,  whereas  in  other  cases  he  criticizes  them. 

Perhaps  the  best  example  of  Tieck's  criticism  of  drawing  is 
that  of  Northcote's  plate  >  "Richard  III."  (Ill,  i,  page  27). 


23 

He  says,  "Der  alte  Cardinal  scheint  ganz  verzeichnet  zu  sein, 
man  ist  ungewiss,  ob  er  steht  oder  kniet:  in  beiden  Fallen  ist  die 
Zeichnung  f ehlerhaf t. "  Tieck's  strictures  are  correct.  The 
space  from  the  waist  down  is  found  upon  examination  to  be  ab- 
normally long  for  a  kneeling  person,  and  groteskly  short  for  one 
standing.  Tieck's  critique  is  good,  for  it  points  out  the  error 
and  the  reason,  and  shows  that  in  any  case  the  alternativ  is  a 
bad  one. 

Tho  Tieck  may  hav  been  over-kind  to  Angelika  Kaufmann,  he 
quite  agrees  with  his  contemporaries  in  the  condemnation  of  an- 
other German  Swiss  living  in  England,  namely  Fiiessli,  whom  he 
calls  one  of  the  worst  of  the  admirers  of  Michaelangelo.  The 
michaelangelesk  school  of  the  day  faild  in  its  expression  of 
great  muscular  effort,  in  that  it  put  for  strength  distortion  and 
violence.  Fiiessli  was  one  of  the  most  important  adherents,  or 
rather,  was  the  greatest  representativ  of  the  fad  perhaps  any- 
where and  seems  therby  to  hav  largely  incurd  the  displesure  of 
his  German  critics.  That  Tieck  really  understood  Michaelangelo 
is  shown  by  his  later  article  in  the  "Phantasien  iiber  die  Kunst. " 
He  defends  him  from  the  charge  of  having  drawn  to  show  his 
knowledge  of  anatomy  and  among  other  things,  exclaims  on  his 
"greatness,  his  wild  grace,  his  fearful  beauty."27  But  Tieck  had 
no  use  for  those  of  his  imitators  who  caught  only  the  extrava- 
-gance  of  his  figures  and  debased  his  Titanic  creations  into  bi- 
zarre contortions  by  over-emfasis  on  mere  muscle. 

That  Tieck  was  not  unconscious  of  the  effect  of  mere  line  is 
shown  by  his  pointing  out  the  unplesantness  of  the  line  made 
•by  Leontes'  figure  in  Hamilton's  picture  of  the  statu  scene  from 
"Winter's  Tale. "  Awkwardness  and  violence,  anything  that 
savord  of  "affectation  and  bombast,"  where  in  Shakspere  "power 
and  energy"  are  found,  met  Tieck's  disapproval.  So  this  figure 
of  Leontes,  so  Orlando  standing  with  his  legs  far  apart,  so  the 
faces  drawn  by  Fiiessli.  Wherever  there  were  violent  angles, 
sharp  points  and  corners,  Tieck  felt  himself  ill  at  ease.  When 
he  saw  in  some  of  Fiiessli's  plates  faces  which  giv  the  impression 
of  the  plaster  blocks  of  the  art  schools  that  are  used  to  draw 
from  the  cast,  the  square  chins,  the  noses,  either  very  pointed 
•or  cut  off  square,  imprest  him  as  repulsivly  inhuman.  "Widrig, 
unnatiirlich,  abgeschmackt,  manierirt, "  are  the  terms  applied  to 
Fiiessli's  cursing  scene  from  Lear. 


24 

It  would  hav  been  interesting  had  Tieck  seen  Fiiessli's  later 
scenes  in  the  "Gallery."  The  Bottom  scenes  from  the  "Mid- 
summer Night's  Dream"  show  that  fantastic  imagination  which 
was  the  artist's  strong  point.  All  the  forms  from  the  fairy  world 
were  there,  Moth,  Peascod  and  a  welth  of  other  spirits.  There 
is  a  distinct  appeal  to  the  imagination  which  justifies  the  painter 
of  "Die  Nachtmahr,"  tho  the  faces  of  Titania  and  Oberon  are 
here  too  hard  and  sullen.  But  the  imagination  shown  has  a 
curious  similarity  with  the  work  of  Tieck  in  his  later  stories  such 
as  "Die  Elf  en,"  and  which  has  so  warm  an  afterglow  in  "Die 
Vogelscheuche." 

Composition  means  for  Tieck  especially  order.  He  has  not 
yet  lernd  the  principle  of  triangulation  of  arrangement  enunci- 
ated by  Caroline  in  the  "Gemalde"  essay  in  the  Athenaeum. 
He  expects  no  more  than  that  the  principle  character  shall  be 
in  an  important  place  in  the  picture  and  insists  that  the  lighting 
devices  serv  to  throw  such  personages  into  relief.  So  when  the 
perspectiv  is  bad  it  is  because  of  the  wrong  emfasis  on  the  prin- 
cipal figures  rather  than  that  the  harmony  of  the  whole  is  dis- 
turbed by  a  wrong  arrangement. 

What  irritates  Tieck  especially  is  an  arrangement  of  figures 
in  the  picture  in  the  regular  semi-circle  borrowd  directly  from 
the  theater.  The  evil  of  unnaturalness  which  such  attitudiniz- 
ing brings  with  it,  is  enhanced  by  light  effects  drawn  from  the 
same  source.  So,  for  example,  where  the  light  is  that  of  a  lamp, 
only  so  much  light  as  a  lamp  would  giv,  or  the  effect  of  natural 
lamp-light  is  allowable.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  sunlight 
streams  into  the  room,  the  source  of  the  sunlight  should  be  evi- 
dent as  outside  the  room.  Tieck  might  hav  mentiond  as  an  ex- 
ample of  this  some  of  the  fine  interiors  of  Pieter  De  Hoogh.  The 
light  effects  should  not  be  harsh  but  graded  down  so  that  no  vio- 
lent light  contrasts  occur  within  the  same  room.  The  light, 
too,  should  be  broken  up,  not  kept  in  a  mass  as  if  it  were  a  sep- 
arate entity  to  be  treated  apart  from  all  other  objects. 

All  this  is  perfectly  resonable  and  not  especially  technical. 
It  is  conveyd  in  stray  hints  rather  than  in  any  set  discussion  of 
light  effects  in  any  one  place.  Often,  too,  Tieck's  dislike  for 
some  other  aspect  of  a  painter's  work  leads  him  astray  on  this 
point.  This  is  tru  in  the  case  of  Northcote,  whose  really  good 


25 

treatment  of  the  high  lights  Tieck  has  in  one  or  two  cases  en- 
tirely overlookt.  There  seems  to  hav  been  a  distinct  appeal 
made,  too,  by  the  sheen  and  glitter  of  certain  textiles  and  the 
scintillating,  flickering  light  of  the  later  periods  of  Tieck's  work 
is  presaged  as  erly  as  this.  On  the  whole,  however,  it  is  not  the 
glitter  of  the  world  of  out-of-doors,  but  of  the  world  of  the  shut- 
in,  of  the  world  of  little  things  which  appeals  so  strongly  to 
Tieck  and  which  he  treated  with  such  banality  in  the  story 
"Ulrich  der  Empfindsame. " 

Thus,  Tieck's  landscape  criticism  is  very  bad  and  even  tho,  as 
has  been  pointed  out,  the  basis  for  his  adjectivs  lies  in  the  An- 
zeigen  articles,  his  expansion  beyond  them  brings  no  real  better- 
ment. In  the  plate  from  ''Love's  Labor  Lost"  (IV,  I,  page  9), 
when  Tieck  was  feeling  his  way  into  his  subject,  his  general  im- 
pression was  one  of  plesure,  and  so  the  landscape  is  "reizend. " 
In  the  whole  essay,  "reizend"  is  the  only  constructiv  epithet 
applied  to  landscape  and  it  occurs  only  twice.  Hamilton's  land- 
scape is  purely  conventional  and,  except  for  a  vista,  of  which 
Tieck  was  all  his  life  fond,  offers  nothing  to  commend  it.  The 
failure  of  Tieck  to  judge  rightly  must  be  laid  at  the  door  of  too 
great  reliance  on  the  Anzeigen. 

Tieck  criticizes  only  one  other  landscape  as  such,  tho  in  a 
third  case  a  landscape  background  is  discust  adversly.  For  the 
scene  from  "As  You  Like  It"  in  which  Jacques  watches  the 
wounded  deer  the  term  "reizend"  seems  quite  impossible.  En- 
graved by  Middiman  after  Hodges,  a  combination  which  augurs 
ill,  the  scene  is  without  dout  the  worst  in  every  way  that  Tieck 
saw.  The  composition  is  bad:  Jacques,  a  figure  without  grace 
of  expression,  sprawls  in  a  comedy  landscape  and  the  features  of 
the  wounded  deer  hav  a  strong  Hebraic  cast.  Here,  if  ever,  the 
scene  is  drawn  from  the  stage  and  not  from  nature  and  stage 
properties  are  models  for  tree  and  foliage.  When  Tieck  says 
that  the  scene  is  one  to  arouse  cheerfulness  in  the  beholder,  he 
is  correct  but  not  in  the  sense  that  he  ment.  The  reliance  on 
his  source  is  not  enuf  to  account  for  his  aberration;  the  failure 
to  judge  aright  must  be  laid  at  Tieck's  door. 

After  pointing  out  the  value  of  the  whole,  and  the  effect  made 
by  the  light  of  the  torch  held  by  Gloster  ("Lear,"  III,  4),  Tieck 
shows  that  this  effect,  striking  as  it  is,  detracts  from  the  unity  of 


26 

the  composition,  since  it  shifts  the  emfasis  from  Lear  and  his 
pain.  Lear,  morover,  is  not  the  Lear  of  Shakspere  but  a  giant, 
and  the  effect  of  this  Herculean  form  is  made  further  improbable 
by  the  exaggeration  of  the  wind  blowing  from  all  directions  in 
the  picture  and  driving  the  garments  of  Lear  with  it,  winding 
them  impossibly  about  him.  The  effect  of  these  draperies,  says 
Tieck,  is  baroque  and  there  is  no  thought  of  quiet  strength  or 
noble  simplicity.28 

In  the  composition  of  this  picture  Tieck  also  notises  that  the 
figure  of  Edgar  is  practically  the  same  as  that  of  a  figure  in 
West's  Deth  of  General  Wolf.  A  comparison  with  the  latter 
picture  at  once  reveals  the  justness  of  Tieck's  observation.  The 
figure  of  the  Indian  seated  in  the  foreground  is  strikingly  like 
that  of  Edgar,  both  in  form  and  in  general  expression,  and  it  is 
evident  that  West  has  repeated  himself.  In  general,  Tieck  does 
not  make  comparisons  of  this  kind.  He  confines  his  remarks  to 
the  picture  itself,  and  probably  was  not  well  acquainted  with  the 
run  of  contemporary  British  art.29 

Tieck's  judgment  of  composition  did  not  go  far  beyond  this 
emfasis  on  the  principal  figure.  A  general  series  of  colorless 
f rases  like  "gut  geordnet"  occurs,  but  expresses  only  a  mild  acqui- 
escence in  the  arrangement.  Tieck  was  fond  of  the  posing  sen- 
timentalities of  groups  like  the  landscape  plate  from  "Love's 
Labor  Lost,''  but  he  tries  hard  to  get  away  from  them  toward  a 
realism  which  drew  upon  actual  perception  for  its  postulates  and 
which  was  not  based  upon  premises — inadequate  for  art — of  Shak- 
spere illustration.  On  the  other  hand,  and  here  he  departs  con- 
stantly from  the  canon  of  Lessing,  there  is  no  striving  for  ab- 
stract beauty.  Charm  and  grace,  beauty  in  motion  as  it  is  ex- 
prest  by  the  female  figure  in  Anne  Page  and  a  few  other  cases, 
are  Tieck's  nearest  approach  to  it.30 

The  general  reason  for  Tieck's  failure  is  that  in  actuality  these 
pictures  were  not  ugly  or  inartistic  to  him.  Where  he  criticizes 
it  is  oftenest  the  idea;  the  execution  and  the  relation  to  an  ab- 
stract standard  are  of  less  consequence,  and  his  theory  once 
more  limps  behind  his  practis.  He  may  berate  Hogarth  as  an 
artist  without  beauty  but  it  is  clear  that  his  extoling  of  Rafael 
is  a  mere  matter  of  fashion;  he  is  in  the  same  category  with 
Domenichino,  whom  Tieck's  generation  and  the  next  succeeding: 


27 

one  considerably  overestimated.  In  Michaelangelo,  Tieck  knows 
the  strength  of  the  drawing  and  not  the  wistfulness  that  per- 
vades even  the  most  Titanic  of  the  master's  creations.  In  gen- 
eral, affectation  of  pose,  mannerism  and  preciosity  are  Tieck's 
bane  only  where  the  sentimental  is  not  concernd. 

An  interesting  commendation  of  the  composition  of  a  plate  is 
that  of  Kirk's  picture  from  "Titus  Adronicus"  (IV,  i).  Tieck  likes 
the  plate  because  of  its  taste  and  delicacy  in  only  suggesting  the 
mutilated  arms  of  Lavinia.  Kirk  has  avoided  the  frank  natural- 
ism of  the  original  by  the  use  of  draperies,  and  this  appeals  to 
Tieck  as  a  toning  down  and  is  in  line  with  what  had  been  sug- 
gested before  in  regard  to  Tieck's  attitude. 

This  plate  has  an  accessory  which  Tieck  objects  to,  namely  the 
over  large  colum  in  the  background.  Usually,  but  not  in  this 
case,  Tieck  criticises  the  accessories  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
stickler  for  historical  accuracy,  rather  than  for  any  artistic  merit 
or  demerit.  So  the  tomb  of  the  Capulets  in  "Romeo  and  Juliet" 
is  not  Italian  of  the  period,  and  the  dresses  of  the  women  in 
"Merry  Wives"  are  in  violation  of  the  sumptuary  laws  of  the 
time.  In  the  deth  of  Mortimer  (i  "Henry  VI.,"  V,  2)  the 
family  tree  lying  on  the  ground  adds  a  tuch  of  symbolism  which 
Tieck  approves,  tho  in  the  same  scene  he  criticizes  the  mean 
character  of  the  prison,  saying  that  for  such  a  noble  prisoner  a 
better  place  of  incarceration  would  hav  been  found. 

Tieck  makes  no  clear  distinction  between  passing  expression 
(Ausdruck)  and  permanency  of  feature  (Miene).  His  discussion 
of  expression  goes  hand  in  hand  with  composition,  since,  as  was 
mentiond  above,  composition  has  so  close  a  relation  to  the 
placing  of  the  principal  character.  There  is  a  definit  point  of 
view,  however,  in  Tieck's  discussions  of  composition;  in  his 
strictures  and  encomiums  on  expression  of  face  and  figure  it  is 
practically  impossible  to  find  a  consistent  pou  sto.  In  places,  his 
powers  of  observation  seem  to  hav  deserted  him  and  his  lapses 
are  not  attributable  to  a  too  great  leaning  on  the  articles  in  the 
Anzeigen.  Tieck's  theoretical  discussion  of  the  common-sense 
element  in  these  illustrations  may  be  ever  so  clear  and  his  de- 
mands on  the  artist  may  be  ever  so  high,  but  his  practical  appli- 
cation of  these  principles  is  by  no  means  as  strict  as  might  be 
expected.  Indeed,  in  theory  Tieck  demands  one  thing  and  in 
practis  another. 


28 

It  is  Tieck's  desire  that  the  artist  should  catch  the  individual 
note  in  these  figures  and  raise  it  to  an  ideal,  that  he  should 
choose  the  expression  with  care  and  never  sacrifice  it  to  coloring 
or  drapery  and  that  he  should  avoid  all  necessity  of  using  sym- 
bols to  designate  his  characters.  But  when  Tieck  actually  ex- 
amins  the  pictures,  he  stresses  theatrical  pose  or  mien  and  pays 
no  attention  to  those  obvious  tricks  whereby  expression  is  ob- 
tainable: the  skilful  use  of  light  and  shade  on  the  face,  the 
treatment  of  the  lines  of  the  mouth,  and  the  placing  of  the  eyes. 
Occasionally,  as  in  the  ball  scene  in  "Romeo  and  Juliet,"  it 
seems  as  if  the  treatment  of  the  eyes  of  a  figure — in  this  case 
that  of  Tybalt — attracted  his  attention,  but  there  are  so  many 
other  plates  in  which  the  eyes  are  quite  as  good  and  are  never- 
theless past  over,  that  the  instance  of  Tybalt  seems  fortuitous. 

Tieck  uses  the  expressions  "ohne  Ausdruck,"  "wenig  Aus- 
druck"  and  "ohne  Charakter, "  "wenig  Charakter"  almost  ex- 
clusively in  his  negativ  criticism  of  the  plates  and  his  positiv 
criticism  substitutes  "viel"  for  "wenig."  Such  frases  are  not 
very  definit  and  Tieck  misapplies  them  constantly.  In  four  out 
of  the  five  cases  of  Tieck's  largest  caption,  "ohne  Ausdruck," 
he  is  certainly  incorrect  and  the  postulation  of  "wenig  Aus- 
druck" is  wrong  in  at  least  two  out  of  the  three  cases.  It  is  not 
a  matter  of  personal  opinion  nor  can  it  be  a  difference  in  point 
of  view  between  the  twentieth  century  and  the  end  of  the  eigh- 
teenth. It  is  largely  bad  judgment  on  Tieck's  part.  In  the 
three  cases  where  Tieck  sees  "vielen  Ausdruck"  not  one  is  in 
reality  especially  distinguisht  for  vividness.  Two  even  vie  with 
the  most  expressionless  in  feature  and  hav  no  special  pretentions 
to  significance  of  posture.  In  the  five  plates  where  Tieck  uses 
"ohne  Charakter"  or  "wenig  Charakter,"  the  epithets  are  in 
general  tru. 

Tieck  got  the  hint  for  an  advers  criticism  of  the  faces  of  Mrs. 
Ford  and  Mrs.  Page  from  the  Anzeigen.  He  exclaims,  expand- 
ing his  model,  "Welch'  widrige  Gesichter!  welch'  uninteresante 
Figuren!"  There  is  in  the  pose  of  Mrs.  Page  a  most  awkward 
droop  of  the  neck,  but  in  Mrs.  Ford's  face  there  is  a  rollicking 
Irish  drollery,  a  freshness  of  complexion  and  a  witchery  of  the 
eyes  that  are  quite  charming.  The  painting  was  by  Peters, 
whose  "sprightly  humor"  was  so  much  admired  by  his  contem- 
poraries. 


29 

One  of  the  two  pictures  of  Leontes  in  the  "Winter's  Tale" 
shows  his  giving  the  oath  to  Antigonous  to  destroy  the  child. 
In  Leontes'  frowning  face  Tieck  sees  no  expression,  altho  it  is 
unquestionably  one  of  the  most  lively  of  the  series.  The  stiffness 
of  pose  that  Tieck  objects  to  in  the  picture  may  well  be  ac- 
counted for  by  the  full  suit  of  armor  that  Leontes  wears.  The 
face  is  far  more  expressiv  than  that  of  the  other  Leontes  picture 
and  yet  Tieck's  judgment  on  them  is  the  same. 

One  of  the  most  striking  failures  on  Tieck's  part  to  see  char- 
acter interpretation  of  real  subtlety  is  in  Northcote's  portrayal 
of  "Richard  III."  There  can  be  no  dout  that  Tieck's  general 
dislike  of  the  artist,  which  was  based  on  the  adverse  criticisms  of 
the  Anzeigen,  led  his  judgment  astray.  The  face  of  Richard  is 
all  in  all  the  most  characteristic  of  the  series  in  so  far  as  Tieck 
saw  the  series.  Richard's  "subtle,  false  and  trecherous"  look 
with  the  smile  of  his  grim  humor  is  well  caught;  the  eyes  and 
mouth  are  excellent  and  giv  a  very  adequate  idea  of  the  deviltry 
of  the  man,  of  his  lewd  cunning  and  his  scheming.  What  Tieck 
might  well  hav  objected  to  is  the  sentimentalizing  of  the  two 
princes  whom  the  artist  has  transmogrified  into  fat  little  babies, 
just  as  in  the  next  picture  the  two  hav  become  well-fed  little 
beef-eaters. 

As  Tieck  fails  to  see  sentimentality  in  this  picture,  so  he  misses 
extravagance  in  the  church  scene  from  "Much  Ado."  Tieck 
borrowd  much  in  this  discussion  from  the  Anzeigen  but  his  re- 
marks on  expression  are  his  own.  He  says  that  Leonato  has  too 
little  expression.  There  can  be  no  dout  as  to  the  figure  intended 
.for  Leonato.  Claudio  is  identified  by  a  very  theatrical  gesture 
and  by  a  Mefistofelian  Don  Juan  behind  him.  The  fainting 
Hero,  over  whom  Beatrice  is  bending,  falls  into  Benedix'  arms. 
The  only  other  figure,  that  of  an  older  man,  and  who  therefore 
cannot  be  Benedix,  is  standing  in  a  most  theatrical  posture  with 
clencht  fists,  eyes  upturnd,  rigid  and  ridiculous.  If  Tieck  ment 
that  this  figure  should  represent  Leonato,  he  has  shot  wide  of 
the  mark  in  his  criticism  and  displays  a  most  unrefined  love  of  the 
melodramatic.  Figures  like  this  are  not  often  found  in  the 
"Gallery."  Ordinarily  excess  of  sentiment  and  a  cheap  display 
of  emotion  giv  way  to  stiffness  and  awkwardness. 

Tieck  was  dissatisfied  with  all  the  reproductions  of  Lear.    They 


30 

hav  all  too  much  of  the  gigantic,  too  little  of  the  childish  old  man. 
He  points  out  that  the  face  as  drawn  by  Fuessli  expresses  nothing 
but  rage;  the  same  exaggeration  is  found  in  the  drawing  of  West 
who  sacrifices  truth,  nature  and  emotion  to  a  striking  first  im- 
pression. Barry's  Lear  only  excites  laughter  and  the  lack  of  ex- 
pression in  the  face  is  made  up  by  the  storm-wind  in  the  hair. 
Again,  however,  issu  must  be  taken  with  Tieck's  attitude,  for  it 
is  impossible  to  regard  these  faces  as  expressionless.  It  is  not 
that  they  hav  too  little,  but  too  much,  and  of  a  wrong  kind. 
Tieck  nowhere  draws  the  clear  distinction  and  nowhere  makes  it 
evident  that  he  regards  "Ausdruck"  as  a  term  to  be  interpreted 
in  any  but  a  common  sense  way. 

It  seems  apparent  that  those  plates  which  had  a  certain  senti- 
mentality, a  certain  saccharin  quality  appeald  to  Tieck.  He 
likes  the  prettiness  of  Anne  Page  and  cleverly  notes  the  touch 
of  scorn  in  her  face.  If  he  had  recalled  Reynolds'  Mrs.  Siddons 
he  would  hav  recognized  the  same  trait  of  hardness  around  the 
mouth,  a  line  that  is  often  found  in  the  pictures  of  English  wom- 
en. Perhaps  Tieck's  interest  went  hand  in  hand  with  his  enthu- 
siasm for  Rafael,  and  lack  of  discrimination  lets  him  take  all  as 
of  equal  value.  The  face  of  young  Lucius  in  "Titus  Adronicus" 
and  the  face  of  Juliet  in  the  tomb  are  examples  of  this.  Tieck 
argues  that  the  boy  has  a  good  deal  of  expression,  but  a  cool  ob- 
observer  can  see  only  melodrama  in  the  pose  and  blankness  in 
the  face.  The  most  interesting  thing  about  the  plate  has  escaped 
Tieck's  attention,  namely  that  both  of  Titus'  hands  are  repre- 
sented. It  seems  an  especially  noteworthy  omission  in  a  picture 
which  Tieck  praises  for  not  showing  the  stumps  of  Lavinia.32 

Tieck  several  times  criticizes  a  picture  for  making  a  good  first 
impression  and  then  not  being  able  to  stand  the  test  of  close  ob- 
servation. An  example  of  this  is  Northcote's  portrayal  of  Morti- 
mer and  York  (i  "Henry  VI.,"  II,  5)  which  is  really  spoild  ac- 
cording to  Tieck  by  the  strong  light  masses  which  at  first  sight 
seem  very  striking.  These  light  masses  throw  the  main  figure 
into  relief,  but  Tieck  objects  to  the  unnatural  posture  of  the  dy- 
ing man.  Close  examination  of  the  figure  reveals  the  fact  that 
Mortimer  is  really  well  drawn;  the  lines  of  the  drapery  distort 
the  general  impression,  but  that  part  of  the  drawing  comprising 
the  actual  sitting  figure  is  that  of  a  broken  old  man,  fallen  in  a 


31 

heap  and  dying.  Any  one  who  has  seen  Irving's  masterly  repre- 
sentation of  the  dying  Louis  cannot  but  be  imprest  by  the  veri- 
similitude of  Northcote's  presentation.  What  Tieck  says  of  the 
minor  characters  on  the  plate  is  true;  they  are  expressionless  in 
the  extreme. 

Tieck  is  fully  justified  in  calling  Reynolds'  scene  from  "Henry 
VI."  ' 'dieses  abscheuliche  Blatt,"  where  the  word  "abscheu- 
lich"  is  reminiscent  of  the  Anzeigen.  He  asks  further,  "1st  dies 
der  Kiinstler  der  Familie  des  Ugolino?"33  With  much  better 
right  he  might  hav  askt,  "Is  this  the  painter  of  the  'Age  of  In- 
nocence' and  the  man  who  loved  to  paint  children?"  Both  the 
Shakspere  plate  and  the  stiff  Ugolino  picture  attempt  to  portray 
the  horrible,  and  the  only  other  plate  that  Sir  Joshua  did  for  the 
"Gallery,"  namely,  the  Hecate  plate  from  "Macbeth,"  the  same 
selection  of  a  grewsome  subject  is  made.  Neither  of  these  pic- 
tures can  be  sed  to  conform  with  Reynolds'  well-known  doctrin 
that  the  function  of  art  is  to  arouse  the  imagination,  for  in  these 
pictures  there  is  nothing  left  for  the  imagination  but  exhaustion. 
They  show  a  vein  of  the  bizarre  without  the  great  fancy  of 
Fiiessli  and  are  realistic  to  a  degree  that  stopt  at  nothing.  It  is 
not  to  be  wonderd  at  that  Tieck  exhausts  himself  in  condemna- 
tion of  the  plate  that  he  saw. 

It  is  plain  that  Tieck  saw  in  the  plate  a  caricature  and  an 
evasion.  The  caricature  was  the  dying  man  and  the  evasion 
was  the  veild  face  of  the  young  king.  Tieck  felt  that  the  artist 
had  veild  the  face  of  his  character  to  conceal  his  want  of  skill  in 
the  portrayal  of  a  supreme  moment  of  emotion.  Here  Tieck 
certainly  breaks  with  the  doctrin  of  Lessing  who  praised  the  ex- 
pedient of  Timanthes  in  veiling  the  face  of  Agamemnon  at  the 
sacrifice.  Tieck  tacitly  accuses  Reynolds  of  shirking  an  obvious 
task.  He  wisht  something  superlativ,,  whether  in  fleeting  ex- 
pression or  in  that  permanency  which  is  caused  by  iterativ 
emotion.  Such  a  desire,  the  emfasizing  of  Shakspere's  "Kraft" 
and  "Energie"  leaves  him  on  the  plane  of  the  Storm  and  Stress 
in  his  attitude  toward  the  British  poet.34  If  the  words  of  Sir 
Joshua  himself  are  to  be  taken  as  a  criterion,  his  theory  is  dif- 
ferent from  his  practis  in  this  case,  and  Tieck  has  condemd  him 
out  of  his  own  mouth. 

Beauford,    whom   Tieck    calls  a    caricature,    certainly   leaves 


32 

nothing  to  the  imagination,  as  Reynolds  wisht  for  art.35  Tieck's 
description  of  the  figure  is  apt,  "Beauford  liegt  da,  mit  den 
Zahnen  grinsend,  das  Bett  in  Verzuckungen  kneifend,  eine 
ekelhafte,  verzerrte  Caricatur,  iiber  die  man  lachen  konnte, 
wenn  sie  etwas  weniger  abscheulich  ware.  Genie  and  Enthusi- 
asmus  konnen  hier  die  Hand  und  Kritik  unmoglich  irre  gefuhrt 
haben;  denn  weder  das  eine,  noch  der  andere  gehort  dazu,  um 
diese  Ziige,  diese  Umrisse  hervorzubringen. " 

The  word  caricature  is,  even  before  he  found  it  in  the  Anzei- 
gen,  a  term  of  deepest  reproach  with  Tieck.  In  his  essays  to 
Wackenroder  he  says,  speaking  of  a  certain  actor,  "Ich  gestehe 
dass  er  vielleicht  viele  Scenen  natiirlich  und  einige  komish  dar- 
stellt,  aber  nach  meinem  Urtheil  spielt  er  in  keiner  einzigen 
schon,  mit  einem  Worte,  er  macht  Carrikatur,  und  die  kann  nie 
schon  sein,  wenn  sie  auch  noch  so  vielen  Ausdruck  hat.  Das 
Komische  und  das  Schreckhafte  granzen  iiberhaupt  vielleicht 
naher  aneinander,  als  man  glaubt  .  .  .  Vielleicht  ist  das 
wahre  komische  Spiel  so  wie  Unzelmann  est  giebt,  alles  so  leicht, 
so  iibergehend,  keine  Periode,  keine  Idee,  keine  Stellung  mog- 
lichst  festgehalten,  keine  Grimasse  in  Stein  verwandelt. " 

After  pointing  out  the  value  of  the  unspoild  taste  of  child- 
hood in  matters  of  esthetic  judgment,  Tieck  continues:  "Du 
kannst  leicht  die  Erfahrung  machen,  dass  Carrikaturen  den  Kin- 
dern  nie  gefallen,  denn  sie  erkennen  in  ihnen  nur  mit  Miihe  den 
Menschen  wieder,  sie  fiirchten  sie  wirklich;  sie  konnen  ungleich 
langer  eine  andre  Figur  ohne  Ausdruck  und  bestimmten  Charak- 
ter  betrachten,  ja  tagelang  dariiber  briiten,  und  Ausdruck  und 
Charakter  hineintragen,  hundert  Traume  spinnen  sich  in  ihrer 
Seele  aus,  .  .  .  Carrikaturen  gefallen  iiberhaupt  vielleicht 
nur  einem  kalten  nordlichen  Volke,  dessen  Gefiihl  fur  den  feinen 
Stachel  der  stillen  Schonheit  zu  grob  ist,  oder  die  schon  die 
Schule  der  Schonheit  durchgegangen  sind,  und  deren  iibersatten 
Magen  nur  noch  die  gewiirztesten  Speisen  reizen  konnen,  die  es 
daher  gern  sehen,  wenn  die  Schonheit  dem  Ausdruck  aufgeopfert" 
wird,  weil  sie  in  der  Schonheit  keinen  lebenden  Ausdruck  mehr 
finden.  Du  wirst  sehen,  dass  ich  hier  nicht  bloss  von  der  ko- 
mischen  Carrikatur  spreche,  sondern  von  jedem  Ausdruck  irgend 
einer  Leidenschaft,  der  die  Schonheit  ausschliesst."  He  then 
goes  on  to  indicate  the  relation  of  what  he  had  sed  to  Lessing 


33 

and  confesses  his  indetedness  to  him  in  the  matter.  The  high- 
est effects  when  used  in  sculpture  and  painting  are  also  carica- 
ture. 

Paralel  to  this  statement  in  the  letters  is  the  discussion  in  the 
essay  of  the  valu  of  the  comedies  of  Shakspere  over  his  trag- 
edies as  material  for  illustration.  Tieck  says  (page  15),  "Im 
Trauerspiele  ersteigen  meistentheils  gerade  die  schonsten  Scenen 
eine  Hohe  des  Effects,  die  der  Maler  schwerlich  ausdriicken 
kann,  ohne  widrig  zu  werden.  Der  Schauspieler  verliert  schon 
oft  jene  Grazie,  die  jedem  Kunstwerke  nothig  ist,  wenn  er 
manche  Scenen  der  tragischen  Kraft  so  wiedergeben  will,  wie  er 
sie  im  Dichter  findet,  doch  kann  die  Mimik  hier  noch  das  Unan- 
genehme  vermeiden;  der  Malerei  ist  es  aber  meist  unmoglich, 
denn  jene  Verzerrungen,  die  auf  der  Biihne  nur  voriibergehend 
sind,  werden  hier  bleibend  gemacht;  dort  erschrecken  sie  durch 
ihr  plotzliches  Entstehen  und  Verschwinden,  hier  werden  sie 
ekelhaft,  weil  durch  das  Feststehende  und  Bleibende  d6s  Widri- 
gen  der  dargestellte  Mensch  zum  Thier  herabsinkt.  Jemehr  der 
Maler  den  Affekt  hinauftreibt,  desto  mehr  nimmt  er  zugleich 
Interesse  und  Tadel  von  seinem  Helden.  Die  hochsten  Grade 
des  Zorns,  der  Wuth  oder  der  Verzweif elung  bleiben  im  Gemalde 
stets  unedel;  selbst  der  Wahnsinn  muss  hier  mit  einer  gewissen 
Schuchternheit  auftreten,  und  im  hochsten  Entziicken  muss  ein 
sanfter  Wiederschein  der  Melancholic  leuchten."  The  relation 
of  this  to  Lessing,  both  in  the  "Laokoon"  and  in  the  "Drama- 
turgic" is  at  once  apparent. 

The  dislike  for  caricature  centers  around  the  comic  efforts  of 
Smirke  for  whom  Tieck  has  hardly  a  good  word  to  say.  In  the 
discussion  of  Reynolds'  picture,  Tieck  remarks,  half  in  jest,  that 
he  regrets  his  strictures  on  Smirke  in  the  face  of  this  greater 
caricature  by  Reynolds.  The  sum  total  of  his  criticisms  of 
Smirke  is  unjust:  thruout  the  series  and  especially  in  some  of  the 
plates  that  Tieck  saw,  this  painter  has  caught  the  comic  spirit 
well,  and  tho  overpraisd  by  his  contemporaries,  has  done  some 
very  clever  work  both  in  the  "Gallery"  and  in  Bell's  "British 
Theater."37 

Tieck's  principal  censures  are  directed  against  the  figure  of 
Simple  in  the  "Merry  Wives"  and  that  of  Dogberry  in  the  comic 
trial  in  "Much  Ado."  Simple  is  for  Tieck  neither  the  character 


34 

as  Shakspere  conceived  him,  nor  is  he  funny.  It  is  again,  says 
Tieck,  a  mere  exaggeration,  tantamount  to  a  confession  of  inabil- 
ity. That  the  spectator  cannot  laugh  at  the  character  is  the 
artist's  greatest  punishment;  in  overstepping  the  just  limits  of 
the  comic  and  the  natural,  he  has  made  the  figure  insignificant. 
Unlike  Hogarth,  says  Tieck,  Smirke  has  not  the  power  of  ex- 
pressing character  by  means  of  the  distortions  of  the  exterior. 
To  put  an  artist  below  Hogarth  is  with  Tieck  to  put  him  very 
low;  in  this  respect  he  stands  on  the  plane  of  August  von 
Schlegel  in  the  Athenceum  and  has  not  risen  to  the  level  of  ad- 
miration for  the  Englishman  displayed  by  Novalis  in  the  "Frag- 
ments." 

The  best  that  Tieck  can  say  for  the  Dogberry  scene  as  a  whole 
is,  that  in  spite  of  its  exaggerations,  it  has  much  comic  power. 
But,  he  goes  on  to  explain,  it  is  a  far  different  thing  for  Smirke 
to  exaggerate  than  for  Shakspere,  for  the  latter  always  draws 
human  beings,  while  the  figures  of  the  former  are  at  times  hardly 
to  be  distinguisht  from  apes. 

To  a  certain  extent  the  figure  of  Dogberry  and  more  especial- 
ly the  face,  justify  Tieck's  repugnance.  In  its  way,  the  face  is 
fully  as  bad  as  that  of  Reynolds'  Beauford.  Tieck  says,  "Selbst 
ein  vertrauter  Leser  des  Shakspeare  findet  sich  nicht  in  den  hier 
dargestellen  Caricaturen,  von  denen  die  Hauptperson  in  einer 
Wuth,  die  lacherlich  sein  soil,  so  ekelhaft  verzerrt  wird,  dass 
man  nur  ungern  mit  dem  Blick  auf  dieser  Zeichnung  verweilt. " 
This  is  in  every  respect  tru.  Smirke  has  here  mist  all  the 
comic  elements  of  the  character,  and  has  produced  not  the 
ridiculous  malapropian  Dogberry  but  a  demoniac  grinning  mask 
of  a  face  and  a  twisted,  distorted  and  frenzied  figure.  Tieck 
proceeds,  "Ein  Kiinstler,  der  die  komischen  Scenen  des  Shak- 
speare darstellen  will,  sollte  doch  von  seinem  Dichter  so  viel  ge- 
lernt  haben,  dass  dieser  seine  Caricaturen  nie  ohne  eine  gewisse 
Portion  von  phlegmatischer  Laune  lasst,  die  so  oft  unser  Lachen 
erregt,  und  aus  der  blossen  Erfahrung  sollte  er  wissen,  da'ss 
selbst  der  lacherlichste  Zwerg,  wenn  er  schaumt,  in  eben  dem 
Augenblicke  aufhort  lacherlich  zu  sein.  Jedes  Subject  hort  auf, 
komisch  zu  sein,  sobald  ich  es  in  einen  hohen  Grad  von  Leiden- 
schaft  versetze.  Denn  das  Lacherliche  in  den  Charakteren  ent- 
steht  gewohnlich  nur  durch  die  seltsam  widersprechende  Mi- 


35 

schung  des  Affects  und  des  inneren  Phlegma;  wenigstens  so  hat 
Shakspeare  seine  wirklich  komischen  Personen  gezeichnet. 
Der  Mangel  an  Genie  zeigt  sich  gewohnlich  in  Uebertreibung 
und  gesuchten  Verzerrungen  des  Korpers.  "38 

The  scene  from  the  "Merry  Wives"  in  which  Dr.  Cajus  cate- 
chizes William  on  his  Latin,  represents  very  well  the  type  of 
scene  the  choice  of  which  Tieck  condems  as  unsuited  for  repre- 
sentation. It  is  not  because  there  was  something  in  the  humor 
of  them  that  Tieck  did  not  grasp,  but  because  he  rejects  on  prin- 
ciple all  that  is  secondary  and  episodical.  Such  scenes  as  are 
told  and  not  acted,  that  is,  the  epic  portions  of  the  plays,  as 
well  as  the  reflectiv  and  filosofical  portions  would  hav  to  be  ex- 
cluded. It  is  the  fate  of  the  principal  characters  which  is  of 
prime  importance,  and  the  moment  must  be  chosen  with  their 
activities  in  view.  This  emfasis  on  the  principal  character  is 
also  strongly  reminiscent  of  the  doctrin  of  Lessing's  "Drama- 
turgic." It  has  been  shown  how  it  affects  what  Tieck  has  to  say 
about  composition  and  it  is  the  prime  factor  in  his  feeling  for 
what  is  the  proper  moment  and  subject  of  representation. 

Some  of  the  scenes  which  Tieck  rejects  are  Hodges'  picture  of 
the  melancholy  Jacques,  and  the  murder  of  the  princes  in  "Rich- 
ard III."  Neither  of  these  is  acted  out  on  the  stage.  From  the 
"Merry  Wives"  he  proposes  Falstaff's  three  adventures:  the 
basket  scene,  the  Witch  of  Brentford  scene  and  the  final  tortur- 
ing of  Falstaff  by  the  practical  jokers.  These  giv  a  chance  for 
variety  of  grouping  and  a  gradation  of  expression  in  all  the  chief 
characters  of  the  play.  The  scene  in  which  the  two  women 
read  identical  letters  from  Falstaff,  Tieck  regards  as  the  worst 
possible,  for  reasons  that  he  says  he  need  not  recall  but  which 
are  obviously  those  of  lack  of  stress  on  the  main  character. 

The  scenes  that  Tieck  recommends  were  actually  chosen  by 
the  artists  whose  work  appears  later  in  the  series  and  so  Tieck's 
judgment  is,  in  a  way,  confirmd.  These  scenes  are  the  skele- 
ton of  the  farce  element  and  bring  out  the  structure  of  the  Fal- 
staff plot  which  Tieck  evidently  regards  as  the  main  theme.  It 
is  interesting  to  note,  however,  how  little  the  choice  of  subject 
has  to  do  with  the  artistic  merit  or  demerit  of  the  plates.  The 
subsequent  plates,  which  would  hav  fully  satisfied  Tieck's  re- 
quirements as  to  the  moment  of  presentation  are  artistically 
among  the  worst  in  the  series. 


36 

The  two  scenes  from  "As  You  Like  It"  suggested  by  Tieck, 
the  one  where  Adam  admonishes  Orlando  (II,  3)  and  the  scene 
in  the  forest  where  Orlando  enters  bearing  Adam  on  his  shoulders 
(II,  7)  hav  not  the  same  structural  relation  to  the  whole  as  hav 
those  from  the  "Merry  Wives."  These  moments  lend  them- 
selves very  well  to  representation  but  are  chosen  on  another 
basis  of  judgment.  They  show  that  for  Tieck  Orlando  was  of 
more  importance  than  Rosalind,  for  he  suggests  no  scene  with 
her  in  it  as  especially  representativ  of  the  play.  In  the  first  of 
these  two  scenes,  the  action  has  already  begun;  the  scene  is  the 
culmination  of  the  episode  containing  the  first  relation  of  the 
brothers.  It  is  in  itself  not  a  vital  part  of  the  action.  The 
scene  in  the  forest,  on  the  other  hand,  has  more  of  the  qualities 
demanded  by  Tieck:  a  variety  of  characters  and  an  important 
moment.  This  is  a  moment — tho  not  the  initial  one — when  Or- 
lando's fortunes  mend  and  he  comes  to  his  frends.  The  scene 
in  which  he  first  meets  the  Duke's  party  is  of  more  significance. 
It  seems  as  if  the  governing  principle  is  contrast  rather  than  a 
desire  for  elucidation  of  structure  in  serial  arrangment.  Orlando 
and  Adam,  ill-fortune  and  good  luck,  are  juxtaposed. 

Tieck  conjectures  that  the  eavesdropping  scene  from  "Much 
Ado"  (III,  i)  is  included  in  the  collection  because  it  was  played 
by  popular  actresses  of  the  contemporary  English  stage.  Tieck 
misses  the  structural  importance  of  the  scene.  It  is  a  part  of  the 
intrigue;  it  has  a  direct  effect  on  Beatrice  who  comes  from  it  a 
changed  woman.  To  Tieck,  however,  it  ment  as  little  as  the 
similar  eavesdropping  scene  from  "Love's  Labor  Lost"  (IV,  3), 
in  which  play  he  claims  there  is  no  suitable  scene  for  represen- 
tation. 

The  scene  from  "Winter's  Tale"  in  which  Perdita  welcomes 
the  disguised  Duke  (IV,  3),  offering  him  flowers  the  while,  is 
condemd  in  favor  of  the  one  immediately  following  in  which  the 
Duke  discloses  himself.  Here  again  Tieck  stresses  the  contrast 
and  wishes  a  climax,  a  dramatic  moment.  So  he  praises  such 
scenes  as  the  putting  away  of  Hero  at  the  altar  and  the  deth  of 
Beauford,  however  much  he  derides  the  execution  of  the  latter, 
by  Reynolds. 

For  the  sake  of  bringing  out  the  wretchedness  of  this  execu- 
tion, Tieck  points  out  that  tho  he  has  often  before  bewaild  the 


37 

choice  of  moment,  he  cannot  do  so  in  this  case  for  no  better 
could  hav  been  selected.  He  details  the  good  points  in  the 
scene:  ''Man  denke  sich  einen  Bosewicht  auf  dem  Todtenbette, 
den  die  Verzweifelung  wahnsinnig  gemacht  hat,  der  keine  Selig- 
keit  hofft;  diesen  besucht  in  seiner  Todesstunde  Heinrich,  der 
junge  gefiihlvolle  Konig,  ein  Schwarmer  in  der  Religion,  der 
von  diesem  Anblick  auf  das  tiefste  geriihrt  wird;  Warwick  und 
Salisbury,  zwei  mannliche  Krieger,  begleiten  ihn  hierher.  Beau- 
ford  ist  die  Hauptperson,  alle  Zuschauer  haben  ihre  ganze  Auf- 
merksamkeit  auf  ihn  gerichtet.  Der  Kunstler  hatte  hier  riihren 
und  erschiittern  konnen;  ich  sehe  in  Gedanken  den  weichen 
Heinrich  Thranen  vergiessen,  im  schonsten  Contrast  mit  dem 
Cardinal,  der  ihn,  in  der  Abwesenheit  seines  Geistes,  kalt  und 
ohne  Bewusstsein  anstarrt.  Warwick  und  Salisbury,  weniger 
geriihrt,  aber  doch  interessante  Physiognomien,  die  durch 
leichtere  Nuancen  von  einander  tinterschieden  sind.  -So  sehe 
ich  in  der  Phantasie  das  schonste  tragische  Gemalde  .  .  . " 

In  "Romeo  and  Juliet"  the  choice  of  the  ball  scene  meets 
with  Tieck's  disapproval.  The  scene  is  "Ohne  Wirkung. "  Tieck's 
main  reason  why  the  scene  is  not  good  is  that  the  painter 
has  interpreted  literally  the  metafor,  "My  lips  two  blushing  pil- 
grims stand"  and  has  represented  Romeo  in  the  garb  of  a  pilgrim 
to  correspond  to  Juliet's  anser,  "Good  pilgrim."  As  Tieck 
rightly  points  out,  there  is  no  need  for  such  a  gise.  The  choice 
of  the  more  highly  keyd  situation  at  the  supposed  deth  of  Juliet 
meets  with  Tieck's  approval  and  shows  that  where  there  is  a 
choice,  the  emfasis  of  his  selection  is  apt  to  be  on  the  superlativ 
moment.39 

One  other  idea  seems  to  be  in  Tieck's  mind  and  it  is  hard  to 
believe  that  he  was  not  unconsciously  influenced  by  the  stage 
presentation  of  the  plays  when  formulating  it.  That  is  the  de- 
sire to  hav  a  number  of  people  in  the  picture.  Nearly  all  the 
plates  that  he  condems  hav  but  few  characters  and  his  dictum  of 
variety  demands  a  reasonable  number  to  choose  from.  This  dra- 
matic point  of  view  is  in  accord  with  his  attitude  in  all  other 
fases  of  the  discussion.  It  has  been  pointed  out  how  rarely  the 
artistic  makes  the  prime  appeal  to  him. 

Tieck's  second  point  in  regard  to  choice  of  subject  is  that  the 
comedies  offer  a  wider  field  and  a  better  opportunity  than  the 


38 

tragedies.  The  general  basis  for  this  notion  is  allied  to  his 
theory  of  the  worthlessness  of  caricature,  that  is,  that  there  is 
an  exaggeration,  an  overacting  of  the  part  possible  in  tragedy 
that  is  less  likely  to  occur  in  comedy. 

The  statement  of  the  evils  of  exaggeration  is  very  sweeping 
and  includes  in  some  of  its  details  both  comedy  and  tragedy: 
"Der  dramatische  Dichter  hat  Momente  in  seinen  Schauspielen, 
die  kein  Pinsel  oder  GrifTel  jemals  darstellen  kann;  ich  meine 
jene  Spriinge  und  iiberraschenden  Wendungen  des  Affectes,  jene 
fiirchterlichen  Blitze  des  Genies,  bei  denen  der  Zuschauer  zu- 
sammenfahrt,  wo  der  Dichter  unerwartet  durch  eine  neue  ver- 
drangt:  diese  Momente  sind  oft  die  glanzendsten  des  Schau- 
spiels,  und  bei  keinem  Dichter  finden  sie  sich  so  haufig  als  bei 
Shakspeare  in  seinen  Tragodien."  Tieck's  illustration  for  this 
is  the  passage  from  Lear  beginning,  "No,  I  will  weep  no  more," 
etc.  He  continues,  "welcher  Maler  wird  es  wagen,  wenn  er 
den  Sinn  ganz  durchdringt,  .  .  .  diese  Stelle  auf  die  Lein- 
wand  zu  werfen?  So  innig  diese  Verse  beim  Lesen  oder  bei 
der  Darstellung  riihren,  so  frostig  wiirden  sie  vielleicht  als  ein 
Gemalde  dargestellt  erscheinen:  oder  wenn  sie  auch  hier  riihr- 
ten,  so  wiirde  das  Gemalde  doch  nie  jene  Erschiitterung  in  uns 
erregen,  jenes  Anschlagen  von  hundert  Gefiihlen.  Man  wiirde 
immer  nur  den  weinenden  Lear  sehen  oder  den  erziirnten  Vater, 
der  sich  zur  Kalte  zwingt;  das  Ineinanderschmelzen  dieser  bei- 
den  Empfindungen,  verbunden  mit  der  Verstandesschwache, 
die  dem  Schmerz  endlich  ganz  erliegt  und  Wahnsinn  wird,  ware 
selbst  ein  Rafael  unmoglich:  hier  steht  ein  grosser  Grenzstein 
zwischen  dem  Gebiet  des  Malers  und  des  Dichters. " 

The  result  of  overstepping  these  bounds  is  that  the  painter  is 
likely  to  enter  into  rivalry  w7ith  the  poet,  to  feel  his  lack  of  abil- 
ity in  the  struggle  and  to  produce  empty  declamation  insted  of 
a  work  of  the  creativ  imagination  and  to  offer  to  the  spectator 
nothing  for  either  imagination  or  reason. 

But  in  the  comedies  there  are  many  moments  which  almost 
force  themselves  on  the  painter.  These  are  scenes  in  which  he 
can  portray  the  poet  just  as  he  finds  him  and  in  which  his  rival- 
ry is  legitimate  and,  indeed,  may  tend  to  make  him  surpass  the 
poet.  If  he  can  do  this  it  will  be  by  bringing  out  more  plainly 
the  light  shades  of  the  poet's  meaning  and  he  will  become  a 


39 

commentator,  so  to  speak,  of  these.  Under  such  circumstances, 
the  painter  must  be  very  careful  to  choose  just  the  most  beauti- 
ful and  most  interesting  passages. 

The  relation  to  Lessing  is  again  at  once  clear.  The  culmin- 
ating moment  of  passion  as  it  appears  in  the  tragedies  is  not 
suitable  from  the  artistic  point  of  view  for  reproduction  but  the 
comedies,  from  their  admixture  of  the  flegmatic,  the  almost  im- 
perativ  concomitant  of  Shaksperean  humor,  tone  down  this 
superlativ  expression  and  are  therefore  within  the  pale.  How 
Tieck  carries  out  his  theory  in  practis,  has  been  sufficiently 
shown:  his  love  for  the  sentimental  and  melodramatic,  for  the 
climatic  and  striking  lead  him  to  neglect  his  delimiting  theoreti- 
cal remarks. 

Before  leaving  the  discussion  of  Tieck's  article,  it  may  be  well 
to  compare  it  with  another  contemporary  treatment  of  the  Boy- 
dell  Gallery.  This  is  by  the  famous  traveler  and  -publicist, 
George  Forster.  It  was  Forster's  account  which  furnisht  Fiorillo 
with  much  of  his  data  for  the  treatment  of  the  ' 'Gallery"  in  his 
history  of  British  art,  but  it  is  hardly  likely  that  the  account  is 
a  source  for  Tieck.  I  hav  no  external  evidence  and  the  internal 
evidence  is  entirely  negativ. 

If  Friedrich  Schlegel's  estimate  of  Forster's  artistic  capabili- 
ties be  accepted,  it  is  just  such  pictures  as  these,  where  the  social 
interest  is  great  and  the  artistic  valu  is  secondary,  that  should 
bring  out  Forster's  strength  of  judgment.  Forster  was  also  a 
finely  discriminating  amateur,  with  a  decided  sense  of  tactile 
form  based  on  a  sincere  love  of  Greek  art  and  confirmd  by  a 
study  of  Winkelmann  and  Lessing,  beyond  whom  he  past  in  his 
appreciation  of  the  portrait  and  the  landscape  and  of  the  color- 
ing of  the  great  masters. 

Forster's  essay,  "Die  Kunst  und  das  Zeitalter"  (1791),  was 
written  about  the  time  that  he  saw  the  Boydell  pictures.  It 
shows  his  attitude  toward  Greek  art  and  givs  more  than  a  hint 
of  his  standards  which  point  so  clearly  toward  Schiller.  His 
"Ansichten  vom  Niederrhein,"  especially  the  discussions  of  the 
galleries  and  collections  at  Diisseldorf,  Brussels  and  Antwerp 
fully  express  his  ideas  on  Dutch  and  Flemish  art,  especially  em- 
fasizing  the  characteristics  of  Rubens  for  whose  fleshy  types 
Forster  had  little  use. 


40 

In  the  discussion  of  British  art  which  comes  as  an  appendix  to 
the  "Ansichten,"  Forster  includes  a  rather  detaild  description  of 
the  Boydell  paintings.  He  did  not  see  the  engravings,  or  rather, 
his  description  is  based  on  the  paintings  as  they  hung  int  he 
gallery  in  Pall  Mall  and  so  the  material  of  this  sketch  in  two 
parts,  is  in  one  way  fundamentally  different  from  that  of  Tieck. 
All  the  discussion  of  technique  in  which  Tieck  was  so  weak,  is  en- 
tirely lacking  in  Forster.  His  point  of  view,  too,  is  different. 
He  is  the  traveld,  experienced  man  from  whose  traind  eye  and 
broad  judgment  more  may  be  expected  than  from  the  student 
Tieck.  There  is,  as  Friedrich  Schlegel  says,  an  out-of-doorness 
in  Forster's  work  that  Tieck  could  never  hav  had;  the  over- 
emfasis  on  Shakspere  on  the  part  of  the  latter  is  only  one  pro- 
duct of  his  inexperience. 

In  spite  of  all  this,  it  is  surprizing  to  find  what  correspond- 
ences there  are  between  the  student  Tieck  and  the  more  traind 
Forster.  The  latter  who  knew  vastly  more  of  English  life  than 
Tieck,  fails  to  understand  it  in  just  those  vital  points  where 
Tieck  went  farthest  astray.  Smirke  and  Peters  fare  badly  at  his 
hands,  perhaps  because  of  a  certain  puritanism  in  his  atitude,  or 
to  quote  Schlegel,  because  "Keine  Vollkommenheit  der  Dar- 
stellung  konnte  ihn  mit  einem  Stoff  aussohnen,  der  sein  Zart- 
gefiihl  verletzte,  seine  Sittlichkeit  beleidigte  oder  seinen  Geist 
unbefriedigt  liess. "  For  this  reason  he  can  call  one.  of  the 
Peters  paintings  from  the  "Merry  Wives"  a  brothel  (ein  Speel- 
huis)  or  refer  to  the  women  of  that  artist  as  "lockere  Nymphen. " 

Besides  the  same  general  dislike  for  the  caricatures  of  Smirke 
that  was  noted  in  all  previous  instances,  there  is  the  usual  praise 
of  Hodges,  the  usual  condemnation  of  Opie's  bad  drawing. 
Fiiessli,  too,  comes  in  for  his  share  of  the  blame:  "Der  Beifall, 
welchen  Fiiesslis  Gemalde  in  England  erhalten,  bezeichnet  mehr 
als  alles  die  Ueberspannung  des  dortigen  Kunstgeschmacks. 
Dieser  junge  Schweizer  .  .  .  brachte  nebst  der  Kenntniss 
akademischer  Modelle  sein  malerisches  Kraftgenie  mit  sich  iiber 
das  Meer;  seiner  Phantasie  ward  es  wohl  unter  wilden  Traumge- 
stalten  und  Bildern  des  Ungewohnlichen.  Diese  Stimmung 
.  .  .  verfiihrte  ihn  nur  gar  zu  bald  zu  alien  Ausschweifungen 
der  Manier.  Es  ist  zwar  leicht  das  Alltagliche  zu  vermeiden, 
indem  man  Kontorsionen  darstellt  .  .  ."(page  466).  Again: 


41 

"Es  sind  nicht  Menschen,  die  dieser  Kiinstler  phantasiert,  son- 
dern  Ungeheuer  in  halb  menschlicher  Gestalt,  mit  einzeln  sehr 
gross  gezeichneten  und  sehr  verzerrten,  verunstalteten  Theilen 
und  Proportionen:  ausgerenkte  Handgelenke,  aus  dem  Kopfe 
springende  Augen,  Bocksphysiognomien  u.  s.  f.  .  .  ."  (page 
503).  Northcote  is  damned  with  the  faint  praise  "Nicht  ohne 
Verdienst, "  a  frase  that  clings  to  the  characterizations  of  his 
work  from  the  Anzeigen  to  Fiorillo.  Barry  is  shown  to  lack 
grace,  noble  greatness  and  beauty.  His  distorted  figures  border 
on  caricature  and  his  forms  are  of  giants,  colossi.  His  coloring 
is  bad  in  spite  of  his  theoretical  knowlege  and  good  drawing. 

Forster  sees  thru  Angelika  Kaufmann  and  Hamilton  better  than 
Tieck  did.  Hamilton's  paintings  are  "Machwerk"  and  his  figures 
move  in  Tanzschritt, "  while  Angelika's  are  hermafroditic  (page 
501).  "Die  deutsche  Muse  Angelika  verbarg  die  Inkorrekt- 
heit  und  das  Einerlei  ihrer  allz'uschlanken  Figuren  imter  dem 
Schleier  der  Grazie  und  Unschuld"  (page  459). 

For  Forster,  Shakspere  is  the  most  logical  portrayer  of  nature 
that  ever  existed;  he  meets  the  painter  halfway  in  his  work  by 
his  excellent  characterization  of  the  salient  features  of  a  per- 
sonage and  so  givs  the  painter  sharply  defined  subjects  for  his 
fantasy.  For  the  artists  of  the  British  school  this  is  especially 
valuable  because  effect  is  their  highest  aim  and  beauty  only  sec- 
ondary. Extremes  of  passion,  astonishment,  surprize  are  strivn 
for.  "Sie  hascht  nach  der  Wahrheit  der  Natur  in  ihren  grass- 
lichen  Augenblicken  und  erlaubt  ihrer  Phantasie  den  verwegenen 
Flug,  nicht  in  das  schone  Feenland  des  Ideals  sondern  in  die 
verbotene  Region  der  Geister  und  Gespenster. " 

But  while-  the  general  condemnation  of  British  artists  shows 
far  more  perspectiv  than  is  found  in  Tieck,  the  acquaintance 
with  the  details  of  Shakspere's  plays  is  never  drawn  on  to  point 
out  any  defects  in  choice  of  subject  matter.  Forster  can  refer 
to  the  acted  plays  from  an  experience  that  was  at  this  time  still 
denied  Tieck,  but  this  experience  does  not  result  in  any  well- 
defined  theory  of  Shakspere-illustration  as  a  whole  and  as  we 
found  Tieck  to  hav.  The  melancholy  Jacques  in  the  forest  is 
a  good  scene  for  Forster,  whereas  Tieck  rejected  it  as  having  no 
structural  relation  to  the  rest  of  the  play.  Forster  finds  it 
worthy  of  portrayal  as  one  of  the  moments  arising  from  Shak- 


42 

spare's  variety  of  scene,  character  and  condition  of  life,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  chance  to  show  the  lonesome  melancholy  stag  by 
the  famous  animal  painter,  Gilpin! 

On  Reynolds'  famous  Beauford  picture,  Tieck  and  Forster  are 
entirely  at  odds.  For  Tieck  the  execution  is  terrible,  the  choice 
of  subject  satisfactory.  For  Forster,  the  choice  is  inexcusable, 
the  execution  in  part  masterly;  a  dying  criminal  in  his  last 
throes  seems  to  Forster  an  utterly  impossible  subject  for  repre- 
sentation. So  with  Kirk's  picture  from  ''Titus  Adronicus":  in 
spite  of  the  attempt  to  meliorate  the  impression  of  the  butcherd 
Lavinia,  the  whole  picture  remains  for  Forster  a  disgusting 
sight.  The  conclusion  is  obvious:  Forster's  sense  of  delicacy  re- 
beld  at  the  crass  and  brutal;  wildness  and  terror  shockt  him. 

But  if  Tieck's  article  compares  favorably  with  Forster's  in  all 
points  respecting  the  ''Gallery"  itself,  it  must  be  confest  that  the 
political,  patriotic  note,  the  application  to  Germany  of  the 
principles  of  national  betterment  in  art  which  arose  in  the  mind 
of  Boydell,  escape  him.  He  was  not,  of  course,  like  Forster,  a 
political  writer,  and  revolutionary  conditions  had  no  immediate 
interest  for  him  as  for  the  older  man.  And  so  his  art  criticism 
does  not  look  forward  to  Germany  as  does  Forster's  or  as  does  that 
of  a  propagandist  like  Kleist  in  his  Abendblcetter  article.  Tieck 
does  not  rise  above  the  milieu;  the  "Gallery"  offers  no  hold  with 
which  to  test  contemporary  art  in  his  own  land.  It  is  only  a 
beginning,  clearsighted  in  part  and  in  general  sustaind,  an  ernest 
of  what  the  matured  criticism  of  the  Romantic  school  was  later 
on  to  do. 


NOTES 

'Die  Kupferstiche  nach  der  Shakspeare-Gallerie  in  London. 
Brief e  an  einen  Freund.  1793.  "Kritische  Schriften,"  vol. 
I,  pages  3-34.  [Kr.  Sch.] 

2For  full  title,  see  bibliografy. 

3E.  g.  in  the  letters. 

4Krit.  Sch.  I,  4.     Jean  Paul,  Titan,  I,  42.     [Berlin,  1827.] 

5i7i9-i8o4. 

6Preface  to  the  Prospectus  and  quoted  in  the  preface  to  the 
"Gallery." 

7The  facts  on  the  "Gallery"  are  pretty  well  scatterd.  The  state- 
ments in  Allibone  are  not  all  correct.  See  Graves,  "New 
Light  on  Boydell's  Shakespeare  Gallery,"  Magazine  of 'Art ', 
vol.  XXI,  page  143  ff.  For  some  details  as  to  the  disposi- 
tion of  the  pictures,  see  "Notes  and  Queries,"  series  2,  vol. 
VIII,  vol.  IX,  313,  vol.  X,  52.  Also  Pye,  "Patronage  of 
British  Art,"  London,  1848. 

8Preface  to  critical  works. 

9Page  7. 

IOCopy  in  the  Columbia  University  Library. 

"Mr.  L.  L.   Mackall  kindly  furnisht   me  with  this  information. 

I2This  Ms.  (79  pp.,  vellum,  quarto)  contains  the  signatures  of  all 
the  subscribers  or  their  agents.  Romney,  Warren  Hastings, 
Wedgewood,  the  King,  the  Queen  and  the  Prince  Regent 
besides  a  number  of  English  "persons  of  quality"  are  repre- 
sented. The  poets  are  conspicuously  wanting.  The  King 
of  England  gave  the  copy  to  the  University  Library.  Cp. 
Gcet finger  Gelehrte  Anzeigen  (G.  G.  A.)  1791,  page  1793; 
1793,  Page  561. 

I3At  least  until  after  the  time  concerned  here.  This  from  Wiisten- 
feld  on  the  contributor  to  the  Anzeigen  furnisht  by  Profes- 
sor Wilkens. 

I4The  plates  which  come  into  consideration  and  the  order  in 
which  they  occur  in  Tieck  are  as  follow: 

"Love's  Labor  Lost,"  Tieck,  page  9,  (i)  IV,  i  (G.  G.  A., 
1794,  Page  10);    (2)  IV,  2,  small  plates;    (3)  V,  2. 


44 

"Merry  Wives  of  Windsor,"  Tieck,   page  10,    I,  i  (G.  G. 

A.,  1794,   page  969);    page   12,  II,    i    (G.    G.   A.,    1794, 

page  969);    page   13  (G.  G.  A,,  page  959);  page  13,  I,  4; 

IV,  i,  small  plates  (G.  G.  A.,  1794,  page  970);    V,  5. 
"Twelfth  Night,"  II,  3  (G.  G.  A.,  1794,  page  970);  Tieck, 

page  15.     A  small  plate. 
"Two  Gent.  Verona,"  Tieck,  page  16,  Last  Scene  (G.  G. 

A.,  1793,  Page  903);    17,  IV,  3.     Small  plate. 
"As  You  Like  It,"  Tieck,  page  17,  II,  i  (G.  G.  A.,  1793, 

page  561);    page  17,  last  scene  (G.  G.  A.,  1793,  page  561). 
"Much  Ado  About  Nothing,"  Tieck,   page  19,   III,  i  (G. 

G.  A.,  1791,  page  1794);    IV,  i;    IV,  2. 
"Winter's  Tale,"   Tieck,  page  21,  II,    3  (G.  G.  A.,    1794, 

page  9);  IV,  3;    V,  3;  page  22,  two  small   plates  (G.  G. 

A.,  1794,  page  10). 

I  "Henry  VI.,"   Tieck,    page  24,    II,    5  (G.   G.  A.,  1794, 
page  970.) 

II  "Henry  VI.,"   Tieck  page  25,    III,    3  (G.  G.  A.,    1794, 
page  10). 

"Richard  III.,"  Tieck,   page  27,    III,  i   (G.   G.  A.,    1791, 

page  1794). 
"Titus   Andronicus, "   Tieck,    page  28,    IV,    i    (G.   G.  A., 

1794,  page  970);    page  29  (G.  G.  A.,  1794,  page  970). 
"Romeo  and  Juliet,"  Tieck,  page  30,  I,  5  (G.  G.  A.,  1793, 
page  561);    IV,  5   (G.  G.  A.,  1793,  page  561);    V,  3  (G. 
<4  G.  A.,  1793,  Page  562). 

"King  Lear,"  Tieck,  page  31,  I,  i  (G.  G.  A.,  1793,  page 
903-4);  Page  32,  III,  4  (G.  G.  A.,  1793,  page  904);  page 
33,  last  scene  (G.  G.  A.,  1793,  page  904);  page  34  (G. 
G.  A.,  1793,  page  904)- 

Tieck  mentions  in  all  39  plates;  of  these  24  are  large  plates 
and  the  rest  small  ones.  In  only  6  instances  does  Tieck 
enter  into  even  a  slite  criticism  of  the  small  plates.  In  some 
cases,  his  remarks  are  so  meager  that  it  is  only  by  a  com- 
parison with  the  original  that  we  can  tell  what  plate  he 
means.  s 

I5Boydell's  Catalog,  page  28  ff.  It  may  be  worth  while  to  men- 
tion in  this  connection  that  the  catalog  has  a  number  of  er- 
rors in  the  list  of  these  supplementary  plates.  The  proof 


45 

was  red  carelessly  and  the  results  are  jumbled.  Only  by  a 
careful  comparison  with  the  originals  in  the  1802  edition,  for 
the  results  of  which  there  is  no  room  here,  can  this  be 
straightend  out. 

l6"Romantische  Schule,"  page  57-8. 

I7For  possible  influence  of  Du  Bos,  cf.  Tieck's  doctrin  of  poetry 
as  an  imitativ  art.  Kr.  Sch.,  page  24.  See  Howard,  Pub- 
lications of  the  Mod.  Lang.  Assn.,  vol.  XXII,  page  4.  The 
letters  to  Wackenroder  in  Holtei,  300  Briefe,  etc. 

l8Volbehr,  Dessoir,  Stocker.     D.  L.  D. 

I9Kr.  Sch.  I,  321.  It  is  doutful  if  Tieck  knew  any  of  the  Ho- 
garth Shakspere  plates.  The  dates  of  issu  (Dobson,  pp. 
310,  340  ff.)  are  all  later  than  the  writing  of  the  Boydell 
article.  For  Tieck  and  Hogarth,  Kopke,  I,  page  148. 

^Of  course  the  emfasis  on  color  is  entirely  wanting  in. the  body 
of  the  work.  Tieck  nowhere  in  the  essay  points  out  how 
engraving  can  suggest  color. 

"Literary  paralels  are  at  once  apparent.  So,  Schiller's  Prolog 
to  "Wallenstein." 

"Schriften,  vol.  X,  pages  302-3. 

23Weitenkampf,  155. 

^One  or  two  actual  errors  of  fact  hav  crept  into  the  paper. 
Kyder  for  Ryder  and  Northcate  for  Northcote.  The  latter 
error  and  Tieck's  Slatbard  may  hav  arisn,  as  Professor  Wil- 
kens  suggested  to  me,  from  Tieck's  notoriously  bad  hand- 
writing which  was  misinterpreted  by  the  compositor.  At 
any  rate,  Tieck  made  no  later  effort  to  correct.  The  "Rev." 
before  Peters'  name  misled  both  Tieck  and  Forster  into  lay- 
ing too  much  emfasis  on  his  sacerdotal  function.  The  G.  G. 
A.  calls  him  a  dilettante. 

25Walzel,  279;  Sulger-Gebing,  41,  154.  Engel  ("Angelika  Kauf- 
mann,"  36,  37,  43)  while  not  denying  her  preference  for  this 
dress,  is  of  the  opinion  that  it  was  not  suited  to  her.  "Im 
Schaferkleide,  den  Hirtenstab  in  der  Hand,  Atlaspantoffel- 
chen  an  den  Fiissen,  ein  bebandertes  Hiitchen  auf  der  ge- 
puderten  Coiffure,  umgeben  von  einem  Hofstaat  schongeist- 
iger  Verehrer  und  Verehrerinnen,  so  hatte  sie  unzweifelhaft 
eine  weit  natiirlichere  und  tiichtigere  Figur  gemacht  als  in 
der  Vestalinnentracht  die  sie — das  Bregenzerwaldnymphlein 
— in  der  Folgezeit  zu  bevorzugen  pflegte. " 


46 

26Biografers  of  Sir  Joshua  generally  agree  that  his  pictures  in 
this  series,  with  the  possible  exception  of  "Puck,"  are 
failures.  Boydell  paid  400  and  1500  guineas  for  the  two 
largest  and  this  was  considerd  by  some  an  exorbitant  price. 

27Mmor's  edition,  pages  27,  30. 

28There  is  the  possibility  of  a  crude  symbolism  having  been  in- 
tended for  Shakspere's  "Blow,  winds,"  etc. 

29The  West  picture  was  very  popular.  Cf.  Teutsche  Mercur, 
1791,  pages  445-6,  for  a  criticism  of  Berger's  engraving  from 
it. 

3°See,  300  Bfe.  page  79. 

is  a  difficult  point  to  decide.  The  citizen  class  was  limit- 
ed by  such  sumptuary  laws  as  is  shown  by  the  records,  but 
most  writers  agree  that  the  violations  were  open  and  com- 
mon. 

figure  with  the  helmet  is  unquestionably  that  of  Marius, 
the  tribune.  He  enters  from  the  street  and  is  drest  in  street 
costume.  Titus,  who  has  been  in  the  house,  wears  only  a 
fillet  around  his  hed.  In  the  play,  Marius  commands  the  boy 
to  stand  near  him  for  refuge,  but  in  the  picture  the  moment 
just  previous  is  chosen,  when  the  boy  is  still  near  his  grand- 
father. Forster  wrongly  holds  that  the  helmeted  figure  is 
Titus. 

33Cf.  A.  W.  v.  Schlegel  in  Athenceum,  2,  212,  "Man  kennt  Rey- 
nolds Ugolino  aus  dem  Kupferstiche:  es  ist  ein  alter  Mann, 
der  hungert,  aber  es  ist  nicht  Ugolino."  For  his  criticism 
of  Boydell,  2,  198. 

34Marie  Joachimi-Dege  has  given  a  very  careful  account  of  the 
erly  Romantic  and  Storm  and  Stress  attitude  toward  Shak- 
spere.  Her  book  needs  supplementation  thru  a  study  of  the 
Romantic  Shakspere  criticism,  written  from  the  English 
point  of  view. 

35In  his  Academy  discourses.  Bohn  ed.,  vol.  I,  page  460  ff. 
Reynolds  points  out  that  those  who  praise  the  "invention" 
of  Timanthes  in  the  Agamemnon  picture  hav  not  been 
painters  but  literary  men.  They  use  it  a&  an  illustration  of 
their  own  art.  He  says,  "I  fear  that  we  have  but  very 
scanty  means  of  exciting  those  powers  over  the  imagination 
which  make  so  very  considerable  and  refined  a^part  of  poetry. 


47 

(Cf.  Boydell's  preface.)  It  is  a  doubt  with  me  if  we  should 
even  make  the  attempt.  The  chief,  if  not  the  only  occasion 
which  the  painter  has  for  this  artifice,  is  when  the  subject  is 
improper  to  be  more  fully  represented,  either  for  the  sake  of 
decency,  or  to  avoid  what  would  be  disagreeable  to  be  seen; 
and  this  is  not  to  raise  or  increase  the  passions,  which  is  the 
reason  given  for  this  practice,  but  on  the  contrary  to  dimin- 
ish their  effect  .  .  .  We  cannot  .  .  .  recommend 
an  undeterminate  manner  or  vague  ideas  of  any  kind,  in  a 
complete  or  finished  picture.  This  notion,  therefore,  of 
leaving  anything  to  the  imagination  opposes  a  very  fixed 
and  indispensible  rule  in  our  art, — that  everything  shall  be 
carefully  and  distinctly  expresst,  as  if  the  painter  knew,  with 
correctness  and  precision,  the  exact  form  and  character  of 
whatever  is  introduced  into  the  picture.  This  .....  must 
not  be  sacrificed  .  .  .  for  uncertain  and  doubtful  beauty 
which,  not  naturally  belonging  to  our  art,  will  probably  be 
sought  for  without  success. "  After  praising  the  artifis  oj 
Timanthes,  Reynolds  goes  on  to  say,  ''Suppose  this  method 
of  leaving  the  expression  of  grief  to  the  imagination,  to  be 
.  .  .  the  invention  of  the  painter  and  that  it  deserves  all 
the  praise  that  has  been  given  to  it,  it  is  still  a  trick  that 
will  serve  only  once;  whoever  does  it  a  second  time,  will 
not  only  want  novelty,  but  will  be  justly  suspected  of  using 
artifice  to  evade  difficulties.  If  difficulties  overcome  make  a 
great  part  of  the  merit  of  Art,  difficulties  evaded  can  deserve 
but  little  commendation."  Among  the  names  of  those  who 
discuss  the  "trick"  Lessing's  is,  of  course,  wanting.  Gil- 
ray's  satirical  plate  on  Boydell  should  be  compared  for  this 
and  other  points.  Cop}7  in  N.  Y.  Public  Library. 

36In  this  connection,  the  letters  mention  Engel's  4'Mimik"(i785). 

37Some  of  the  latter  pictures  by  Smirke  are  very  fine;  e.  g.,  the 
face  of  Jessica  which  justifies  the  statement  of  the  Diet. 
Nat.  Biog.  that  Smirke  had  "good  drawing,  refinement, 
quiet  humor."  Bryan  has  a  cooler  comment:  "Smirke 
was  well  spoken  of  in  the  comedy  vein."  Tieck  likes  him 
better  in  tragedy  (page  34).  Fiorillo's  comment  is  "Seit 
Hogarths  Zeiten  hat  kein  Kiinstler  so  viel  Charakter  oder 
so  viel  Ausdruck  in  seine  Figuren  gebracht,  noch  eine  Scene 
mit  so  viel  echter  Laune  bearbeitet. " 


48 

38To  me  the  Tieck-Schlegel  translation  of  this  scene  misses  all 
the  best  points  of  the  original.  To  be  sure,  Tieck  had  noth- 
ing to  do  with  its  translation.  (Friesen,  I,  136;  Sybel,  III, 
463  ff).  It  was  not  that  Tieck  was  not  interested  in  puns, 
altho  the  Dr.  Cajus  scene  seems  uninteresting  to  him  on 
that  account.  Tieck  himself  made  a  good  many  puns.  Cf. 
"Viehsiognomie, "  the  first  lines  of  his  sonnet  on  the  sonnet 
and  the  "gemein"  iromtheAllgemeinc  dentscke  Bibliothek  in 
in  "Das  jiingste  Gericht. "  His  sensing  of  English  puns 
seems  not  to  hav  been  so  keen.  So  in  a  discussion  of  Mss. 
readings  toward  the  end  of  the  essay  on  the  erly  English 
Theater  (Kr.  Sch.  I,  320)  after  calling  one  faulty  reading 
"Unsinn"  he  continues,  "In  derselben  Rede: 

If  you  can  construe  but  your  doctor's  bill 
Parse  your  wife's  waiting  woman,  etc. 

Parse?  Was  kann  das  bedeuten?  Pierce  ist  dem  aufmerk- 
samen  Auge  leserlich  genug. "  Tieck  seems  to  hav  mist  the 
play  on  the  grammatical  idea.  To  be  sure,  I  hav  not  seen 
the  Ms.,  but  Tieck  was  no  very  careful  reader  or  copyist. 
39This  is  a  scene  where  Tieck  saw  both  L.  and  S.  There  were 
two  different  paintings  of  the  same  subject,  one  with  fewer 
figures,  and  Tieck  rightly  points  out  that  the  less  crowded 
one  is  the  better.  One  of  the  engravings  is  by  W.  Blake 
and  is  not  given  in  any  list  of  that  artist's  work.  Mr.  W. 
G.  Robertson,  the  most  recent  biografer  of  Blake  informs 
me  in  a  letter  that  he  does  not  know  it. 


A  PARTIAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Athenaeum.    Eine  Zeitschrift  von  A.  W.  Schlegel  und  Friederich 

Schlegel,  Zweiter  Band.     Berlin,  1799. 
Boydell,  John. 

Catalogue  of  the  .  .  .  Shakspeare  Gallery,  London,  1789. 
The  first  edition  of  the  catalog  givs  the  painters'  names 
only:  subsequent  editions  add  the  names  of  the  en- 
gravers. There  are  copies  of  the  various  editions  in  the 
Columbia,  Harvard  and  New  York  Public  Libraries. 
A  Catalogue  of  Prints  .  .  .  comprising  the  stock  of  J. 
and  J.  Boydell,  London,  1808. 

Copy  in  N.  Y.  Public  Library. 

A  Collection  of  prints  from  pictures  painted  for  the  purpose 
of  illustrating  the  dramatic  works  of  Shakespeare,  by  the 
artists  of  Great  Britain.  London  .  .  .  1803,  2  vols.  in 
one,  atlas  folio. 

There  are  many  copies  in  the  U.  S.  and  there  is  also  an 
American  reprint  with  letterpress  explanatory  of  the 
plates. 

Dessoir,  M.     K.  P.  Moritz  als  Aesthetiker. 

Dobson,  Austin.    William  Hogarth,  New  York  and  London,  1907. 
Engel,  J.  J.     Ideen  zu  einer  Mimik,  1848. 
Engel.     Angelika  Kaufmann,  1903. 

Fiorillo,  J.  D.     Geschichte  der  zeichnenden  Kiinste,  etc.    Bd.  V. 
Geschichte  der  Malerei  in  Grossbittanien.     Gottingen,  1808. 
Forster,  Georg.     Sammtliche  Schriften,  III.     Leipzig,  1843. 
Friessen,  H.  von.     Ludwig   Tieck.      Erinnerungen    eines   alten 

Freundes.     Wien,  1872. 
Gottingen.     Anzeigen  fur  Gelehrte  Sachen,  etc.     The  volumes 

from  1791  to  1803  were  used. 
Haym,  R.     Die  romantische  Schule,  1870. 

Holtei,  K.     Drei  hundert  Briefe  aus  zwei  Jahrhunderten,  Han- 
nover, 1872. 

Joachimi-Dege,  M.     Deutsche  Shakspeare-Probleme  im  XVIII. 
Jahrhundert  und  im  Zeitalter  der  Romantik.     Leipzig,  1907. 
Kopke,  R.     Ludwig  Tieck,  Leipzig,  1855. 


50 

Minor,  J.     Friedrich  Schlegel.     Seine  prosaischen  Jugendschrif- 

ten,  Wien  1906. 

Tieck  und  Wackenroder.     Kiirschners  D.   N.  L.  Bd.  145. 
Moritz,  K.  P.     Ueber   die  nachahmende    Bildung  des  Schonen. 

In  D.  L.  D. 
Reynolds,  J.     Academy    Discourses.      Bohn    Edition,    London, 

1846. 
Shakspere,  W.     The  Dramatic  Works  of    William    Shakspeare, 

London,  1802. 

This  is  the  Steevens  edition  in  nine   volumes.     Copy    in 
New  York  Public  Library. 
Spooner,  Shearjashub.     Prospectus  for  publishing  an  American 

edition  of  Boydell's  illustrations  of  Shakespeare,  N.  Y.,  1848. 
Sulger-Gebing.     Die  Bruder   A.   W.   und  F.   Schlegel    und   die 

bildende  Kunst,  1897. 

Sybel.     Erinnerungen  an  F.  von  Uechtritz.     Leipzig,  1884. 
Volbehr.     Goethe  und  die  bildende  Kunst,  1897. 
Walzel,  O.  F.     Friedrich    Schlegel's   Briefe    an    seinen  Bruder 

August  Wilhelm.     Berlin,  1890. 

Wietenkampf,  F.     How  to  appreciate  prints.    New  York,  1908. 
Zelak.     Tieck  und  Shakspere.     Tarnopol,  1900. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

AN  INITIAL  FINlToF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


RETURN  TO  th 


i -year  loans  may  he 

to  NRLF  '  recharged  hv  hr/« 

Renewals   and   rech*  9  b°°ks 

mac/e   4   days 


E^  STAMPED  BELOW 


